I was genuinely embarrassed for them

Discuss topics relating to airlines.

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

Message
Author
DutyFree
Rank 1
Rank 1
Posts: 19
Joined: Tue Jan 05, 2016 9:18 pm

Re: I was genuinely embarrassed for them

#26 Post by DutyFree » Sun Sep 25, 2016 4:35 pm

Nice Shady!!!

Were you "Genuinly embarrassed for them" because you can do better?
---------- ADS -----------

NotDirty!
Rank 3
Rank 3
Posts: 184
Joined: Wed May 21, 2014 4:04 pm

Re: I was genuinely embarrassed for them

#27 Post by NotDirty! » Tue Sep 27, 2016 8:07 pm

DutyFree wrote:Nice Shady!!!

Were you "Genuinly embarrassed for them" because you can do better?
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.

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

Post Reply

Return to “General Airline Industry Comments”