Another example of the bad info pilots can be given

Topics related to accidents, incidents & over due aircraft should be placed in this forum.

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

Maynard
Rank 6
Rank 6
Posts: 483
Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2008 8:33 am

Re: Another example of the bad info pilots can be given

Post by Maynard »

Sure, I'll stop being a dick. Pelmet starts a thread "..bad info pilots can be given" and then condescend them by stating "Amazing." And lastly quote the CADORs. The pilots were told that there were flames coming out the tailpipe. Not by just a passenger, but also a "Crew member". They declared an emergency and returned. Would it have been amazing if they continued on and had to shut down in flight and land at destination? This thread doesn't benefit anyone.....the only discussion its creating is the blame on pilots. I asked in your last thread if/who you fly for, and you didn't answer then, so I still wonder if you just look at CADORS everyday and judge others, or if you have experience in a commercial operation. I'll tell you a story about tailpipes. I was flying home on the airline I worked for, and noticed sparks intermittently coming from the tailpipe on one of the engines. I told the crew, they said all the gauges were normal, and carried on. They snagged it when we landed, and took another airplane. The next day the plane went out and on the 3rd leg, they had an engine failure. One of the 2nd stage turbine blades had come loose and was rubbing until it finally broke free and took out the 3rd stage turbine. Anyways I won't get in the way of the stellar discussion that's ongoing....

Also a quick search of your posts....
hamstandard wrote:
Have to admit, you do sound like a real dipsh!t.
Ah? Ok, thank you for your contribution to this thread as well?
You love calling people dipshits, get involved with almost every one of Pelmets threads (Which others also find as just stirring the pot), and lastly also add NOTHING to the conversation. Who's the real Dipsh!t?
---------- ADS -----------
 
I guess I should write something here.
pelmet
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 7138
Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2005 2:48 pm

Re: Another example of the bad info pilots can be given

Post by pelmet »

Maynard wrote: Fri Mar 16, 2018 8:12 am Sure, I'll stop being a dick. Pelmet starts a thread "..bad info pilots can be given" and then condescend them by stating "Amazing." And lastly quote the CADORs. The pilots were told that there were flames coming out the tailpipe. Not by just a passenger, but also a "Crew member". They declared an emergency and returned. Would it have been amazing if they continued on and had to shut down in flight and land at destination? This thread doesn't benefit anyone.....the only discussion its creating is the blame on pilots. I asked in your last thread if/who you fly for, and you didn't answer then, so I still wonder if you just look at CADORS everyday and judge others, or if you have experience in a commercial operation. I'll tell you a story about tailpipes. I was flying home on the airline I worked for, and noticed sparks intermittently coming from the tailpipe on one of the engines. I told the crew, they said all the gauges were normal, and carried on. They snagged it when we landed, and took another airplane. The next day the plane went out and on the 3rd leg, they had an engine failure. One of the 2nd stage turbine blades had come loose and was rubbing until it finally broke free and took out the 3rd stage turbine. Anyways I won't get in the way of the stellar discussion that's ongoing....
The problem with you Maynard, is that as soon as you finally try to add to a thread, you prove how lacking in basic knowledge you are(and perhaps should just go back to your completely useless posts).

It is obvious that you don't have the capability to understand basic written information. Yes I said "Amazing" but what is obvious to most others is that this comment is about the bad info from the back(ie. a report of an engine fire when there is no fire), not about the unfortunate pilots who received the bad information. Yet you somehow come to a conclusion that I am condemning the pilots, even after I wrote this as well....
pelmet wrote: Tue Mar 13, 2018 4:36 pm My only real point is.......to give an example of the quality of information one might get from the cabin and to consider that before assessing.

There is no comment on what the flight deck crew did which seems quite reasonable although your suggestion of a pilot taking a look is an option.

Just be aware of trusting the info you are given, including by a flight crew member in the back. It may be very exaggerated and extremely exaggerated from a passenger.
You appear to be unable to comprehend, despite what I wrote that I am criticizing those in the back of the aircraft for what obviously was bad info. Instead you only seem to be able to conclude that I am blaming the pilots when I specifically give an example of bad information being given to pilots as mentioned in the thread title and then say what the pilots did was reasonable. Yes, I did subsequently agree with someone else that one of the pilots could have taken a look for themselves and perhaps one might want to consider the pros and cons of doing so and the potential serious consequences of not doing so as I mentioned earlier in this thread.

And yes, I read the Cadors almost every day because they are emailed to me almost every day. Somehow, I am supposed to tell you who I work for yet I don't see you telling me the name of your employer and I don't really care to know who it is as it is completely irrelevant to the discussion(although you are not the first to demand this info for some strange reason, which one has to wonder what that might be).

As for your story about sparks from an engine and the end result of that situation, I would like to think that most of the rest of us can understand that your experience and the fact that others in the past have experienced seeing actual failures has nothing to do with the reality that.........bad information sometimes gets passed on to pilots. From cabin crew, from ATC, from mechanics, and from other pilots. Just because good information sometimes and quite likely usually gets passed along to pilots doesn't change the former.

This thread is was started in a forum specifically dedicated to incidents and learning from them. Unlike what you say about it benefitting no one, aside from yourself, I believe there is a benefit from this as it at least asks the question, like in any incident, is there anything else that could be done in a situation like this where there is an unverified report of a potentially fatal problem. Especially when the expected response to an event such as an engine fire is to land ASAP, which could be in a remote location in the Pacific or a very marginal airport somewhere else.

I suppose we also get to learn other things about unfortunate traits in some people, such as we see responses from individuals like you.....misinterpreting basic written information and then acting the way you do making false accusations. Now if you care to actually discuss and disagree on what I actually said with other credible alternatives, then that's fine.


Until then, my recommendation for you is to read something several times in order to actually understand it and then comment. See...you can get good info on this thread.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Transition9er2
Rank 4
Rank 4
Posts: 229
Joined: Thu Apr 26, 2018 8:18 pm

Re: Another example of the bad info pilots can be given

Post by Transition9er2 »

Talked with some buddy’s about this and the word is the crew had both FA’s confirm the fire and on the second confirmation of visual fire they called the mayday and started back to Saskatoon. Once they landed the fire trucks told the crew both brakes were smoking and that’s when the crew called for the deplanemt. Wheels up to wheels down was something like 20 mins so the decision to land was made quickly. I don’t think a pilot leaving the flight deck would’ve been a good idea to confirm the fire a 3rd time... not to mention it’s a fire, why would the guys responsible for getting everyone on the ground leave the cockpit... it’s a fire!

Doesn’t make sense that deice fluid would ignite, but from the report I read online excessive fluid was sprayed and caught up in the exhaust pipe and while under takeoff power it ignited.

Thought I’d add some info to the convo and 2 cents.
---------- ADS -----------
 
pelmet
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 7138
Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2005 2:48 pm

Re: Another example of the bad info pilots can be given

Post by pelmet »

Transition9er2 wrote: Thu Apr 26, 2018 8:39 pm Talked with some buddy’s about this and the word is the crew had both FA’s confirm the fire and on the second confirmation of visual fire they called the mayday and started back to Saskatoon. Once they landed the fire trucks told the crew both brakes were smoking and that’s when the crew called for the deplanemt. Wheels up to wheels down was something like 20 mins so the decision to land was made quickly. I don’t think a pilot leaving the flight deck would’ve been a good idea to confirm the fire a 3rd time... not to mention it’s a fire, why would the guys responsible for getting everyone on the ground leave the cockpit... it’s a fire!

Doesn’t make sense that deice fluid would ignite, but from the report I read online excessive fluid was sprayed and caught up in the exhaust pipe and while under takeoff power it ignited.
Thanks for the help. I am not a fire expert but it would seem strange to have a fire but that it left no evidence to be found by maintenance after the fact. I suppose the exception might be something out the tailpipe such as during a start. Maybe there are other cases and would be interested to hear about them. Maybe the excess fluid was spaying back and was interpreted as smoke. People sometimes say..."where there's smoke, there's fire".
---------- ADS -----------
 
pelmet
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 7138
Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2005 2:48 pm

Re: Another example of the bad info pilots can be given

Post by pelmet »

deleted
---------- ADS -----------
 
Last edited by pelmet on Mon Aug 13, 2018 11:20 pm, edited 5 times in total.
User avatar
cdnpilot77
Rank 10
Rank 10
Posts: 2467
Joined: Thu Jun 11, 2009 6:24 pm

Re: Another example of the bad info pilots can be given

Post by cdnpilot77 »

Jazz Aviation LP, was conducting flight JZA8585 from Saskatoon/John G. Diefenbaker Intl, SK (CYXE) to Calgary Intl, AB (CYYC) with 4 crew members and 78 passengers on board.
Doesn’t the ACPA scope clause limit regionals to 76pax or less?
---------- ADS -----------
 
skypirate88
Rank 6
Rank 6
Posts: 444
Joined: Mon Feb 01, 2010 6:46 am

Re: Another example of the bad info pilots can be given

Post by skypirate88 »

cdnpilot77 wrote: Mon Aug 13, 2018 4:15 pm
Jazz Aviation LP, was conducting flight JZA8585 from Saskatoon/John G. Diefenbaker Intl, SK (CYXE) to Calgary Intl, AB (CYYC) with 4 crew members and 78 passengers on board.
Doesn’t the ACPA scope clause limit regionals to 76pax or less?
Not on the props. I assume this flight was a Q.
---------- ADS -----------
 
A mile of road will take you a mile, but a mile of runway can take you anywhere
User avatar
cdnpilot77
Rank 10
Rank 10
Posts: 2467
Joined: Thu Jun 11, 2009 6:24 pm

Re: Another example of the bad info pilots can be given

Post by cdnpilot77 »

Ah got ya....sorry to derail
---------- ADS -----------
 
pelmet
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 7138
Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2005 2:48 pm

Re: Another example of the bad info pilots can be given

Post by pelmet »

Speaking of bad info....

"C-FIQR, an ATR 42-300 aircraft operated by First Air, was flying FAB802 according to the instrument flight rules from Iqaluit, NU (CYFB) to Igloolik, NU (CYGT)
with 3 crew members and 7 passengers on board. While the aircraft was in cruise flight at FL200, the flight attendant reported to the flight crew an abnormal smell in the cabin. The flight crew reported the presence of smoke in the air traffic service and asked for a return to CYFB, where the aircraft landed without problems. No urgency has been declared, and no one was hurt. Following an audit by the operator's maintenance staff, no discrepancies was found. During the subsequent embarkation of the passengers, it was noted that the smell came from the boots of one of the passengers, who had previously dipped in a solvent. The aircraft has been put back into service"

It is very nice that a few here have blind faith in their cabin crew but as I said.....trust but verify. Some might be of the opinion that they should immediately take action and divert for any report of an unusual smell but as far as I'm concerned, there is no need to need to just go land in Midway Island through the birds on final(its kind of short to with PAPI's notammed) or Shemya on a winter storm day for a pair of smelly boots. But that’s just my opinion.
---------- ADS -----------
 
pelmet
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 7138
Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2005 2:48 pm

Re: Another example of the bad info pilots can be given

Post by pelmet »

"C-FLAP, a float-equipped de Havilland DHC-3T aircraft operated by Harbour Air, was conducting flight HES412 from Ganges, BC (CAX6) to Vancouver Harbour, BC (CYHC) with 1 pilot and 6 passengers on board. Shortly after the departure, the pilot turned on the bleed air for cabin heat when passengers advised that smoke was rising from the cabin floor. The aircraft returned to CAX6 and landed without further incident. The operator’s maintenance inspected the aircraft, however no defects were found. It is suspected that the smoke could have been dust from the cabin heat ducts, which had not been used throughout the summer."
---------- ADS -----------
 
7ECA
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1281
Joined: Thu Jul 03, 2014 4:33 pm

Re: Another example of the bad info pilots can be given

Post by 7ECA »

I really don't see what you're looking to accomplish here, by cherrypicking the random occurrences in which a pax (or crew) report of fire/smoke or some other possibly serious incident - which luckily turns out to be a non-event, is?

You've called FAs ditzes with no aviation experience, so in pelmet's world you can't trust anything they say when it comes to reports of smoke/fire (even if multiple FAs report seeing the event)... So only proper pilots can confirm these events, although I don't imagine many pilots are particularly keen to take a leisurely stroll through the cabin when the back end is reporting fire...

How about in the Harbour Air case then, you're flying a single pilot machine - you can't take that stroll. You turn around to take a look, but there's a bit of cabin back there and maybe you can't see or smell anything amiss, but the pax are pretty friggin' sure they've seen and smelt smoke. Probably nothing, but since when do we treat potential smoke/fire as a nonevent? :roll:

How about a situation in which you're flying some sort of a twin, lets call it a member of the King Air family, and a passenger reports seeing oil streaking down the cowling, what would you do, ignore it?
---------- ADS -----------
 
jakeandelwood
Rank 6
Rank 6
Posts: 453
Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2018 11:45 pm

Re: Another example of the bad info pilots can be given

Post by jakeandelwood »

pelmet wrote: Tue Mar 13, 2018 4:36 pm
rookiepilot wrote: Tue Mar 13, 2018 4:19 pm I'm not getting the point.
My only real point is.......to give an example of the quality of information one might get from the cabin and to consider that before assessing.

There is no comment on what the flight deck crew did which seems quite reasonable although your suggestion of a pilot taking a look is an option.

Just be aware of trusting the info you are given, including by a flight crew member in the back. It may be very exaggerated and extremely exaggerated from a passenger.

How many times do we hear endless, repeated OMG's associated with panic mode from some people in certain situations kind of like in this video.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uJyJrS_YToo
I'm guessing that guy in that video has a mental handicap of some sort, kinda sad someone would actually record him. Any info from a flight attendant should be taken seriously, Helios 522 comes to mind, I don't know the workings of a 737 but if a flight attendant had informed the pilots the passenger oxygen masks had deployed maybe the pilots would have caught on to the real problem in time?
---------- ADS -----------
 
pelmet
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 7138
Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2005 2:48 pm

Re: Another example of the bad info pilots can be given

Post by pelmet »

jakeandelwood wrote: Mon Oct 22, 2018 9:00 am Any info from a flight attendant should be taken seriously, Helios 522 comes to mind, I don't know the workings of a 737 but if a flight attendant had informed the pilots the passenger oxygen masks had deployed maybe the pilots would have caught on to the real problem in time?
What you say is very correct about taking information seriously and one should not think that I would suggest otherwise. All I am saying is that there are cases where bad information is given. Each situation is different. In the Helios case, if one got information about O2 masks deploying, it might be time to take appropriate action(such as donning an O2 ask, levelling off with terrain considerations in mind and analyzing the problem of why the horn that you though was the takeoff configuration horn is sounding.
7ECA wrote: Mon Oct 22, 2018 5:56 am I really don't see what you're looking to accomplish here, by cherrypicking the random occurrences in which a pax (or crew) report of fire/smoke or some other possibly serious incident - which luckily turns out to be a non-event, is?
I am simply pointing to another example of what the title of the thread says.....Another example of the bad info pilots can be given. Diversions due to smelly boots, dust from ducts, etc. You are correct that it is random but it obviously happens on occasion. I will continue to post examples as I come across them as a reminder.
7ECA wrote: Mon Oct 22, 2018 5:56 am You've called FAs ditzes with no aviation experience,
No...now you are giving bad info. I said some are ditzes(I used the term 'occasional' actually), which includes ones with very little and in some cases a fair amount of experience. Sorry, the truth is not very nice sometimes. Some prefer to hide it, I prefer to just acknowledge reality.
7ECA wrote: Mon Oct 22, 2018 5:56 am So only proper pilots can confirm these events, although I don't imagine many pilots are particularly keen to take a leisurely stroll through the cabin when the back end is reporting fire...
Depending on the situation, you may want to at least ask more detailed questions. When the word smoke is used and you ask what colour it is(or some other appropriate question) and discover that it is really some fumes, you might realize that it is not smoke and might be something else(like the smelly boots in the ATR example).
7ECA wrote: Mon Oct 22, 2018 5:56 am How about in the Harbour Air case then, you're flying a single pilot machine - you can't take that stroll. You turn around to take a look, but there's a bit of cabin back there and maybe you can't see or smell anything amiss, but the pax are pretty friggin' sure they've seen and smelt smoke. Probably nothing, but since when do we treat potential smoke/fire as a nonevent?
Probably no big deal for the DHC-3 driver going back to land on the water. Some aircraft have oceanic diversion airports as far away locations and are not the kind of places you really want to go, even when the weather is good. Actually, the same can frequently be said over land as well. In the case of the DHC-3, if the pilot smelled smoke, he has confirmed what the passengers said and it would be reasonable to land. However, I guarantee you he did not smell or see any smoke.
7ECA wrote: Mon Oct 22, 2018 5:56 am How about a situation in which you're flying some sort of a twin, lets call it a member of the King Air family, and a passenger reports seeing oil streaking down the cowling, what would you do, ignore it?
Hmmm....how about doing what I suggest...go back and take a look(or just look out the cockpit window) if there is no other indication for corroboration. Would hate to divert to some marginal airport for PT-6 exhaust stack soot("sorry captain, I was sure that the black stuff was oil. By the way captain, how realistic is that Airplane movie starring Leslie Nielson?").

I have seen oil running back on the cowl many times on the old 737-200 while riding in the back. I knew it was normal and never said anything but I bet other pax have over the years. Some on this thread might panic and divert to the nearest so-called suitable airport....just in case(because the pax were "pretty friggin' sure" that there is a massive oil leak).

This pic is actually less oil leaking than I have frequently seen.
https://www.google.ca/search?biw=1280&b ... bLfxyDBnlM:

As an interesting aside..... as a pax, I did report a fuel leak to the pilots of a Beech 99 many years ago while on the ground. It started from the nacelle tank after the right prop came out of feather(King Air and 99 pilots should check for this on every flight anyways). I actually had to report it twice before they shut down to look into it further. Eventually the cap was replaced. I guess I gave the pilots good info that night.
---------- ADS -----------
 
7ECA
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1281
Joined: Thu Jul 03, 2014 4:33 pm

Re: Another example of the bad info pilots can be given

Post by 7ECA »

I'll just leave this little quote here, from an article titled "The Lasting Legacy of the Swissair 111 Investigation";
The industry in collaboration with the airline pilot associations developed international guidance on more effective smoke and fire checklist procedures. When smoke from an unknown source is detected, crews are trained to quickly start planning for immediate landing until they are assured there is no fire threat to the aircraft or occupants.
But hey, let's assume it isn't actually a fire unless pelmet says it is - actually, can we get your number on speed dial, a sort of Medlink for smoke system?
---------- ADS -----------
 
pelmet
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 7138
Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2005 2:48 pm

Re: Another example of the bad info pilots can be given

Post by pelmet »

7ECA wrote: Fri Oct 26, 2018 7:44 pm I'll just leave this little quote here, from an article titled "The Lasting Legacy of the Swissair 111 Investigation";
The industry in collaboration with the airline pilot associations developed international guidance on more effective smoke and fire checklist procedures. When smoke from an unknown source is detected, crews are trained to quickly start planning for immediate landing until they are assured there is no fire threat to the aircraft or occupants.
But hey, let's assume it isn't actually a fire unless pelmet says it is - actually, can we get your number on speed dial, a sort of Medlink for smoke system?
Thanks for the info. My recollection from reading that report was that there was KNOWN AND CONFIRMED smoke/fire on board and the crew initiated a significant delay in landing. The pilots smelled something and four minutes later there was visible smoke in the flight deck after which they planned for an approximate 15-30 minute fuel dump procedure. As the statement above says, one should start PLANNING for an immediate landing when smoke from an unknown source is actually detected. It is up to you to decide what is a reasonable detector.

In reality, it is up to the PIC to decide what is reliable. You have made it clear that you would land for the examples I gave above. I am not saying that this is a wrong decision. What I am saying is.....Bad advice is sometimes given to the pilot(in terms of what has actually been detected). With that in mind, I will leave it to the pilots who read this thread to decide what is the appropriate course of action. But you may want to consider confirming for yourself a situation like this f when there is no other evidence and confirmation can be easily done.

As an update, the first call from Swissair 111 was "Swissair 111 Heavy is declaring a Pan Pan Pan. We have smoke in the cockpit. Requesting immediate return to a convenient place. I guess Boston". Surely you are able to see the difference between smoke in the cockpit and someone in the back reporting a fire on an engine with no warning from the aircraft. Check it out over 30 second time period before landing somewhere possibly dangerous, that you normally wouldn't consider as a place to land.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Last edited by pelmet on Thu May 16, 2019 11:33 am, edited 4 times in total.
jakeandelwood
Rank 6
Rank 6
Posts: 453
Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2018 11:45 pm

Re: Another example of the bad info pilots can be given

Post by jakeandelwood »

I don't know about others but a fire on an airplane is my biggest fear while flying, getting that plane on the ground ASAP would be my biggest priority.
---------- ADS -----------
 
pelmet
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 7138
Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2005 2:48 pm

Re: Another example of the bad info pilots can be given

Post by pelmet »

jakeandelwood wrote: Sat Oct 27, 2018 7:47 am I don't know about others but a fire on an airplane is my biggest fear while flying, getting that plane on the ground ASAP would be my biggest priority.
If there is a fire onboard, that seems like a reasonable idea.
---------- ADS -----------
 
swordfish
Rank 7
Rank 7
Posts: 745
Joined: Sun May 16, 2004 12:18 am
Location: CYZF

Re: Another example of the bad info pilots can be given

Post by swordfish »

Doesn't sound like "bad" information to me. Sounds like good information. If flames come out the exhaust (burning cat, burning coat, "burning man"...there won't be any evidence of that after you land, as the exhaust is at the rear of a Q$ engine.

Same thing happened to me many tears ago with a Beech 99. On takeoff Fort Smith, aeradio (at the time) called us twice to say the right engine was on fire. Nothing wrong inside, anyway we rejected, taxi in, everything is normal except we had flame tracks all down the side of the plane fuselage. What aeradio could see was behind the wing.

Fuel has accumulated in the combustion chamber of the janitrol, and the air pressure door had not opened (frozen I believe). So when the combustion fan started going (at a certain speed), all the fuel caught fire and started coming out the janitrol exhaust. Origin of the fire was concealed from aeradio by the engine, so they concluded the engine was on fire.
---------- ADS -----------
 
pelmet
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 7138
Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2005 2:48 pm

Re: Another example of the bad info pilots can be given

Post by pelmet »

I wouldn't say that this was a case of bad info but it certainly was interesting one. Think I'll bring my own food next time.

C-GWCY, a Boeing 737-600 aircraft operated by WestJet, was conducting flight WJA137 from Calgary Intl (CYYC), AB to Vancouver Intl (CYVR), BC with 5 crew members and 99 passengers on board. Approximately 5 minutes prior to the top of descent, the lead flight attendant informed the pilots that a sulphur like smell was observed in the overhead bins, in the vicinity of Row 2. The flight crew declared a PAN PAN, and landed without further incident. Once at the gate, a fire crew proceeded on board and identified a smell from a WestJet commissary cooler bag in the overhead bin, above Row 2. The bag was removed and searched with no heat source identified. The aircraft was returned to service.
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
EPR
Rank 7
Rank 7
Posts: 520
Joined: Thu Feb 19, 2004 1:38 am
Location: South of 60, finally!

Re: Another example of the bad info pilots can be given

Post by EPR »

pelmet wrote: Tue Mar 13, 2018 4:36 pm
rookiepilot wrote: Tue Mar 13, 2018 4:19 pm I'm not getting the point.
My only real point is.......to give an example of the quality of information one might get from the cabin and to consider that before assessing.

There is no comment on what the flight deck crew did which seems quite reasonable although your suggestion of a pilot taking a look is an option.

Just be aware of trusting the info you are given, including by a flight crew member in the back. It may be very exaggerated and extremely exaggerated from a passenger.

Pelmet, I would hope that your pre-flight "crew briefing" is "inclusive" and can be as simple as stating "any flames from the exhaust is not normal', and that should remove all doubt from the "back end"!
Do yourself a favor, and remove all doubt..(KISS)... keep it simple stupid!
---------- ADS -----------
 
Keep the dirty side down.
Post Reply

Return to “Accidents, Incidents & Overdue Aircraft”