I was genuinely embarrassed for them

Discuss topics relating to airlines.

Moderators: ahramin, sky's the limit, sepia, Sulako, North Shore

Message
Author
lownslow
Rank 8
Rank 8
Posts: 789
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 8:56 am

I was genuinely embarrassed for them

#1 Post by lownslow » Wed Jul 27, 2016 5:46 pm

Couldn't believe this. There I was on a gorgeous day up in the flight levels, not a cloud in sight, when a flight checks in with ATC not far from my position and requests a block of altitudes. Now, bear in mind that this airline checking in exclusively flies a type that's well known for its docile handling and with their present hiring policy I know both pilots will have their ATPLs. The reason for the block: they complained their autopilot had been MEL'd and it was hard to fly.

Blows my mind what kind of people we have in charge of airplanes. I feel kinda sorry for their passengers, too.
---------- ADS -----------

The Raven
Rank 5
Rank 5
Posts: 390
Joined: Sat Mar 20, 2004 8:37 pm

Re: I was genuinely embarrassed for them

#2 Post by The Raven » Wed Jul 27, 2016 6:29 pm

lownslow wrote:Couldn't believe this. There I was on a gorgeous day up in the flight levels, not a cloud in sight, when a flight checks in with ATC not far from my position and requests a block of altitudes. Now, bear in mind that this airline checking in exclusively flies a type that's well known for its docile handling and with their present hiring policy I know both pilots will have their ATPLs. The reason for the block: they complained their autopilot had been MEL'd and it was hard to fly.

Blows my mind what kind of people we have in charge of airplanes. I feel kinda sorry for their passengers, too.
Ever had to hand fly at the upper flight levels? I have, and it's not easy. Very tiring as well. It's like trying to milk a mouse. We had to hand fly a 747 half way across the Atlantic at FL370. We drifted up and down +/- 300 feet. This was in the days before RVSM. There were 3 of us in the flight deck and we all took turns flying. We were exhausted by the time we reached London. If it happened to me again I would descend into denser air and request a block of airspace. Safer and smoother for the passengers.
---------- ADS -----------

AuxBatOn
Rank 10
Rank 10
Posts: 2760
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2008 6:13 pm
Location: North America, sometimes

Re: I was genuinely embarrassed for them

#3 Post by AuxBatOn » Wed Jul 27, 2016 6:39 pm

lownslow wrote: Blows my mind what kind of people we have in charge of airplanes. I feel kinda sorry for their passengers, too.
Flying Qualities normally degrade at higher altitudes, where the damping terms of the long and short period responses (longitudinal and lateral/directional axis) are reduced, which can make it fairly difficult to maintain a constant flight path (the main reason your airplane probably has a yaw damper off maximum altitude which is lower than the service ceiling).

What is worse for passengers? Constant small corrections but a relatively stable altitude or smooth correction over a long period with moderate altitude deviations?
---------- ADS -----------
Going for the deck at corner

User avatar
KAG
Rank 11
Rank 11
Posts: 3428
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2004 11:24 pm

Re: I was genuinely embarrassed for them

#4 Post by KAG » Wed Jul 27, 2016 7:03 pm

Cuts into your reading time. A block solves that. Keep it between the ditches.
---------- ADS -----------
The feet you step on today might be attached to the ass you're kissing tomorrow.
Chase lifestyle not metal.

atphat
Rank 5
Rank 5
Posts: 301
Joined: Wed Feb 11, 2009 8:01 pm

Re: I was genuinely embarrassed for them

#5 Post by atphat » Wed Jul 27, 2016 7:22 pm

Probably makes it safer for other flights as well if they noticed they were deviating from their altitude. Sounds like good airmanship to me.
---------- ADS -----------

User avatar
Pratt X 3
Rank 7
Rank 7
Posts: 747
Joined: Thu Feb 19, 2004 12:19 pm

Re: I was genuinely embarrassed for them

#6 Post by Pratt X 3 » Wed Jul 27, 2016 8:17 pm

Since you aren't supposed to fly in RVSM airspace without an automatic altitude-keeping device, this flight should have been at FL280 or below. If you have difficulties staying within 100 feet of your assigned altitude while hand flying at those altitudes, you really need to click off the autopilot more often and practice your actual flying ability. Partial pass if this was their 5th or greater leg that day or hour 3 of a 4 hour flight. Then they get an extra 50 feet. (And I've been there, done that. In a jet that handles like a dump truck got it on with a shopping cart with a wonky wheel. For 2-3 legs a day. An hour to three hour legs. For nearly 14 days straight. Uphill both ways. In snow up to my teets. Get off my lawn!)
---------- ADS -----------
Have Pratts - Will Travel

cgzro
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1735
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2007 7:45 am

Re: I was genuinely embarrassed for them

#7 Post by cgzro » Wed Jul 27, 2016 8:40 pm

Seems to me if you are having trouble for whatever reason asking for a block is sensible and safe. If you are embarrassed to ask for any kind of help when a problem occurs you could turn an annoyance into something very dangerous rather quickly.
This is true irrespective of if you 'should' be able to handle it unaided or you should not have gotten yourself into some situation in the first place.
---------- ADS -----------

ahramin
Rank Moderator
Rank Moderator
Posts: 5351
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2004 5:21 pm
Location: Vancouver

Re: I was genuinely embarrassed for them

#8 Post by ahramin » Wed Jul 27, 2016 11:09 pm

We're so used to autopilots that keep it within 20' at FL410. Maybe the crew didn't realize that even in RVSM airspace you have to keep it +-300 feet. No need to request a block if you can't keep level as well as the autopilot. What do you mean by flight levels though? What flight level?
---------- ADS -----------

Rockie
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 7327
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 7:10 am

Re: I was genuinely embarrassed for them

#9 Post by Rockie » Thu Jul 28, 2016 5:37 am

If you watch the trim setting on a transport aircraft in cruise someday with the AP on that constant change in setting is people moving around in the back. Add to that high altitude handling characteristics and you have a twitchy handful that becomes very tiring much faster than your average Navajo at 8000 feet.

That crew sounded prudent to me.
---------- ADS -----------

lownslow
Rank 8
Rank 8
Posts: 789
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 8:56 am

Re: I was genuinely embarrassed for them

#10 Post by lownslow » Thu Jul 28, 2016 6:47 am

Prudent or not for this particular crew, it's not hard to keep a turboprop going in a straight line at FL240. At least, it shouldn't be hard.
---------- ADS -----------

atphat
Rank 5
Rank 5
Posts: 301
Joined: Wed Feb 11, 2009 8:01 pm

Re: I was genuinely embarrassed for them

#11 Post by atphat » Thu Jul 28, 2016 7:03 am

You're not getting the point
---------- ADS -----------

Rockie
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 7327
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 7:10 am

Re: I was genuinely embarrassed for them

#12 Post by Rockie » Thu Jul 28, 2016 7:15 am

Having never flown that airplane it's impossible for me to say if it's easy or not. I can say that operating at the top of an airplane's envelope is more challenging in manual flight especially with a constantly changing centre of gravity. Also design characteristics and operating SOP's centred around use of the autopilot could make manual flight more of a challenge than a simpler airplane. I'm reluctant to judge without knowledge of the airplane or this crew's actual circumstances. If they thought they needed a block for more space that's their call to make.
---------- ADS -----------

PositiveRate27
Rank 7
Rank 7
Posts: 514
Joined: Sat Oct 06, 2012 8:27 am

Re: I was genuinely embarrassed for them

#13 Post by PositiveRate27 » Thu Jul 28, 2016 7:31 am

lownslow wrote:Prudent or not for this particular crew, it's not hard to keep a turboprop going in a straight line at FL240. At least, it shouldn't be hard.
If you're talking about any of the big 3 Q400 operators, I have to agree with you. Ive hand-bombed the Q @FL250 and it's not much different from any Beech product I ever flew. (Which I might add didn't even have an AP's) We aren't talking about a 777 at FL400. The only saving grace I'll give them is if the AP is MEL'd due to an INOP Yaw Damper. I can't say I have a lot of time with the Yaw Damper off in the FL's.

Either way, its best to ask for more protection if you feel you need it. Im sure asking for a block didnt inconvenience anyone.
---------- ADS -----------

teacher
Rank 10
Rank 10
Posts: 2360
Joined: Thu Feb 19, 2004 3:25 pm

Re: I was genuinely embarrassed for them

#14 Post by teacher » Thu Jul 28, 2016 8:59 am

I find it funny that in one thread pilots will criticize each other for being Cowboys and not taking the safest option. In this thread a crew felt they needed to make this decision for either the comfort of their passengers or flight safety and you guessed it, beat on again by their fellow pilots.

We truly are our own worst enemy enemies :|
---------- ADS -----------
http://www.collegeofpilots.ca/

pelmet
Rank 10
Rank 10
Posts: 2797
Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2005 2:48 pm

Re: I was genuinely embarrassed for them

#15 Post by pelmet » Thu Jul 28, 2016 9:32 am

I am not embarrassed for the crew at all. I think they made a very wise decision based on reality. That there is a significantly higher risk of an altitude deviation. It's all very nice to say, well just fly the aircraft but is there any harm in taking a precaution? No.

While most of the turboprops I flew had no autopilot it was also in uncontrolled airspace and although I can't remember any significant deviations, it is a pain in the butt to be maintaining altitude with a fat flight attendant walking back and forth repeatedly to serve the meals(that is on of the main reasons for preferring the skinny ones back then) not to mention pax going to the washroom.

Later on I got into the autopilot equipped turboprops. It reminds me of one flight we did with the autopilot broken that was a full six hour overnight flight. I was with chief pilot who had no interest in flying that leg and wanted to relax instead for much of the way. A lot of that flight was in controlled airspace and it was not an enjoyable experience for certain portions of a very long flight. A block of airspace would have been a good idea.
---------- ADS -----------

User avatar
complexintentions
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1754
Joined: Thu Aug 19, 2004 3:49 pm
Location: of my pants is unknown.

Re: I was genuinely embarrassed for them

#16 Post by complexintentions » Fri Jul 29, 2016 5:16 am

The title of this thread pretty much guarantees the original poster is gonna eat a huge shit sandwich one day.

Seen it so many times. Guys slinging the mud end up wearing it eventually. No exceptions.
---------- ADS -----------
I’m still waiting for my white male privilege membership card. Must have gotten lost in the mail.

JTrain
Rank 1
Rank 1
Posts: 37
Joined: Fri Jul 23, 2010 7:06 pm

Re: I was genuinely embarrassed for them

#17 Post by JTrain » Fri Jul 29, 2016 9:31 am

complexintentions wrote:The title of this thread pretty much guarantees the original poster is gonna eat a huge shit sandwich one day.

Seen it so many times. Guys slinging the mud end up wearing it eventually. No exceptions.
+1
---------- ADS -----------

PT6onH20
Rank 1
Rank 1
Posts: 23
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2010 11:13 am

Re: I was genuinely embarrassed for them

#18 Post by PT6onH20 » Sat Jul 30, 2016 10:05 am

lownslow wrote:Couldn't believe this. There I was on a gorgeous day up in the flight levels, not a cloud in sight, when a flight checks in with ATC not far from my position and requests a block of altitudes. Now, bear in mind that this airline checking in exclusively flies a type that's well known for its docile handling and with their present hiring policy I know both pilots will have their ATPLs. The reason for the block: they complained their autopilot had been MEL'd and it was hard to fly.

Blows my mind what kind of people we have in charge of airplanes. I feel kinda sorry for their passengers, too.
That was me, btw. We had just under 6 hours hand flying that day. I thought it made life easier for me and my colleague. Probably helped the passengers stay asleep and may have kept one of the girls from spilling coffee on someone.

But then again, what do I know? I cant hold altitude :D
---------- ADS -----------

NAT2
Rank 2
Rank 2
Posts: 99
Joined: Sat Jun 09, 2007 11:28 am

Re: I was genuinely embarrassed for them

#19 Post by NAT2 » Sat Jul 30, 2016 11:49 am

PT6onH20 wrote:
lownslow wrote:Couldn't believe this. There I was on a gorgeous day up in the flight levels, not a cloud in sight, when a flight checks in with ATC not far from my position and requests a block of altitudes. Now, bear in mind that this airline checking in exclusively flies a type that's well known for its docile handling and with their present hiring policy I know both pilots will have their ATPLs. The reason for the block: they complained their autopilot had been MEL'd and it was hard to fly.

Blows my mind what kind of people we have in charge of airplanes. I feel kinda sorry for their passengers, too.
That was me, btw. We had just under 6 hours hand flying that day. I thought it made life easier for me and my colleague. Probably helped the passengers stay asleep and may have kept one of the girls from spilling coffee on someone.

But then again, what do I know? I cant hold altitude :D
Glad you didn't take this too seriously. Sounds like the original poster is on their own.
---------- ADS -----------

rigpiggy
Rank 10
Rank 10
Posts: 2171
Joined: Sun Jan 16, 2005 7:17 pm
Location: west to east and west again

Re: I was genuinely embarrassed for them

#20 Post by rigpiggy » Tue Aug 02, 2016 3:01 pm

Pratt X 3 wrote:Since you aren't supposed to fly in RVSM airspace without an automatic altitude-keeping device, this flight should have been at FL280 or below.)
somebody should have told someone at air canada that
---------- ADS -----------

co-joe
Rank 11
Rank 11
Posts: 3115
Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 2:33 am
Location: YYC 230 degree radial at about 10 DME

Re: I was genuinely embarrassed for them

#21 Post by co-joe » Tue Aug 02, 2016 4:50 pm

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.
---------- ADS -----------

Dyna
Rank 0
Rank 0
Posts: 5
Joined: Sun Jan 12, 2014 1:07 pm

Re: I was genuinely embarrassed for them

#22 Post by Dyna » Tue Aug 02, 2016 8:37 pm

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.
---------- ADS -----------

Rockie
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 7327
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 7:10 am

Re: I was genuinely embarrassed for them

#23 Post by Rockie » Wed Aug 03, 2016 3:22 am

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.
---------- ADS -----------

pilotidentity
Rank 3
Rank 3
Posts: 119
Joined: Fri Aug 28, 2009 12:00 am

Re: I was genuinely embarrassed for them

#24 Post by pilotidentity » Sun Sep 25, 2016 8:58 am

The pilots asked for and did what they felt they needed to do. Can't see why anyone would have a problem with that.
---------- ADS -----------

User avatar
Shady McSly
Rank 4
Rank 4
Posts: 286
Joined: Tue Sep 13, 2005 9:28 am

Re: I was genuinely embarrassed for them

#25 Post by Shady McSly » Sun Sep 25, 2016 10:01 am

Image
---------- ADS -----------

Post Reply

Return to “General Airline Industry Comments”