flight level 430?

whipline · Post by **whipline** » Tue Nov 29, 2005 11:02 am

Just curious how the bird handled at 43,000 feet?

195psi · Post by **195psi** » Tue Nov 29, 2005 11:34 am

You'l have to ask the autopilot or download the DFDR info.

pika · Post by **pika** » Tue Nov 29, 2005 12:20 pm

Ceiling: 41,000 ft. B737-700

Canus Chinookus · Post by **Canus Chinookus** » Tue Nov 29, 2005 2:41 pm

whipline wrote:Just curious how the bird handled at 43,000 feet?

care to explain wtf you're talking about??

whipline · Post by **whipline** » Tue Nov 29, 2005 3:05 pm

Apparently one of your crews decided to get above some weather and climbed up to 43,000. Thanks Pika I am well aware of the service ceiling.

ivanhoe · Post by **ivanhoe** » Tue Nov 29, 2005 5:22 pm

whipline

Too bad you are not as well aware when it comes to dealing with issues like this.
I have no idea whether the aforementioned incident occured or not but it seems to me that you are trying to use something you heard to slag someone else. I don't know who you work for , nor do I really care but I would have thought your whole 16 years in the business had taught you that ANYONE at ANY company can make a mistake. Rest assured that every airline and every pilot has had their share of screwups. Good for you if you havn't had one yet.
It is the lowest of the low to get on this or any other forum and start slinging accusations around without knowing all the facts and even if you did it still implies that you take some sort of pleasure from broadcasting the mistakes of others.

You have a lot to learn.

WJ700 · Post by **WJ700** » Tue Nov 29, 2005 6:12 pm

That's was a rumor last week in groundschool and the guy who looks at all the FDM data said it is not true. Why, would anyone go up to 430 when their name and data is all transfered to paper for an FDM event commitee to look at???

Prika, as usual, you're an ass.

pika · Post by **pika** » Tue Nov 29, 2005 6:31 pm

So I post a simple fact.

Ceiling: 41,000 ft. B737-700

Next thing I know I have some wj employee calling me names. How am I the ass again? wtf...

Canus Chinookus · Post by **Canus Chinookus** » Tue Nov 29, 2005 8:07 pm

whipline wrote:APPARENTLY one of your crews decided to get above some weather and climbed up to 43,000. Thanks Pika I am well aware of the service ceiling.

See whipline, this is why you're an ass... because you said, APPARENTLY. Now if you had heard it first hand, you MIGHT have a little credibility accusing a WJ crew of doing this.

pika, you were misquoted... don't worry about it.

WJ700 · Post by **WJ700** » Tue Nov 29, 2005 9:09 pm

Let me remind you:

"Face it Wj700. Your jet envy for a real jet is going to force you out of Wj. Don't bet the farm on 777's."

So after a loser comment like that a few weeks back... your 'simple fact' comes over as a snide peanut gallery comment.

Cheers
________________________________________________________

pika wrote:So I post a simple fact.

Ceiling: 41,000 ft. B737-700
Next thing I know I have some wj employee calling me names. How am I the ass again? wtf...

whipline · Post by **whipline** » Tue Nov 29, 2005 9:15 pm

You WJ boys seem to be a bit touchy. Except for Ivanhoe I can remember each and every one of you giving your two cents to all the APPARENT jetsgo incidents.

Touching down on the wrong wheel during a crosswind landing, that is a mistake. Hitting the GO buttons while doing a single channel ILS and forgetting for a second that the autopilot is going to kick off, that is a mistake. Climbing 2000 feet above the service ceiling, thats priceless.

The reason I asked Ivanhoe wasn't to slag. We were at 410 last week ridding the tops getting bounced around and we joked about going higher. I laughed when I heard the story and was wondering how the bird did up there.

The reason I have such a big ass Canus is becuase I have a really small penis and it helps me push it. Now go and spend your profit shareing cheque wisely. May I suggest a high percentage on women and booze.

WJ700 · Post by **WJ700** » Tue Nov 29, 2005 9:26 pm

whipline wrote:You WJ boys seem to be a bit touchy. Except for Ivanhoe I can remember each and every one of you giving your two cents to all the APPARENT jetsgo incidents.

Touching down on the wrong wheel during a crosswind landing, that is a mistake. Hitting the GO buttons while doing a single channel ILS and forgetting for a second that the autopilot is going to kick off, that is a mistake. Climbing 2000 feet above the service ceiling, thats priceless.

The reason I asked Ivanhoe wasn't to slag. We were at 410 last week ridding the tops getting bounced around and we joked about going higher. I laughed when I heard the story and was wondering how the bird did up there.

The reason I have such a big ass Canus is becuase I have a really small penis and it helps me push it. Now go and spend your profit shareing cheque wisely. May I suggest a high percentage on women and booze.

Why wouldn’t we be touchy about some wanker spreading incorrect information on an internet chat forum? If you’re going to knock safety at least have something to back it up. You don’t see WestJet posters in the AC and Jazz forum talking about the stick shaker on the RJ 70, or the tail strike on the Frankfurt A340? Those are even published reports yet I don’t see anything written on the other stuff you’re fishing for.

pika · Post by **pika** » Tue Nov 29, 2005 10:43 pm

Let me remind you:

"Face it Wj700. Your jet envy for a real jet is going to force you out of Wj. Don't bet the farm on 777's."

So after a loser comment like that a few weeks back... your 'simple fact' comes over as a snide peanut gallery comment.

Cheers

You call me a prick, an ass, and a loser all in one thread. Then you post something I posted from another thread that has nothing to do with what is being discussed here. Then you get on your high moral horse and tell me my post is snide? Do you want to track down my grade 3 teacher to see if I was respectful of others? You seem more than a little conflicted here.

WJ700 · Post by **WJ700** » Wed Nov 30, 2005 1:31 am

You made it past grade three?

pika · Post by **pika** » Wed Nov 30, 2005 8:42 am

What's that you said about posts from the peanut gallery? You're a hypocritical fool AND you work for wj? What are the odds...

WJ700 · Post by **WJ700** » Wed Nov 30, 2005 9:08 am

You seem conflicted.

whipline · Post by **whipline** » Wed Nov 30, 2005 9:21 am

So let me get this straight. Someone at WJ decided to start a rumor about fellow employee's at WJ going above 410? Usually rumors like this would be started from outside the company would it not?

Another question for you WJ700, do you think the FDM guy would tell you that something had happened before it was looked into by the proper people? I hope not!

If you want to chat about tail strikes or high altitude stalls I think it is an excellent idea, we can all learn from others mistakes.

Canus Chinookus · Post by **Canus Chinookus** » Wed Nov 30, 2005 11:07 am

Let me get this to you straight. If it had truly happened, and if the FDM guy checked into it, here at WJ we don't have a problem sharing screwups(without the names) and learning from them. I have full confidence that if the FDM guy says nothing like that happened, then it didn't.

WJ700 · Post by **WJ700** » Wed Nov 30, 2005 1:28 pm

The FDM info is available for anyone to see. The names are taken out of the reports. So the FDM guy isn't going to lie when anyone of us can see the truth if we looked in to it.

RB-211 · Post by **RB-211** » Wed Nov 30, 2005 6:33 pm

Heh Whip,

Ask the guys in the CRJ that DIED pulling the 'Heh man, I wonder if we can....'

The WJ boys/girls are not dumb. So smarten up.

whipline · Post by **whipline** » Wed Nov 30, 2005 7:41 pm

Sorry RB, the guys that crashed in the CRJ went above their maximum altitude for their given weight and speed but not above the service ceiling, stalled the airplane, flamed out the engines which then went into a core lock making them unable to relight. I'm not sure what that story has to do with this one.

WJ700 · Post by **WJ700** » Wed Nov 30, 2005 8:09 pm

Ah, something to actually discuss. I think the Pinacle RJ crash had those pilots in an empty aircraft on a ferry flight and within the limits and ceiling of the aircraft. I have to work tomorow morning but I'll try and find the report when I'm back.... if one of you doesn't find it first.

Rebel · Post by **Rebel** » Thu Dec 01, 2005 12:12 am

If a crew intentionally operates an aircraft above its approved certificated ceiling altitude there would be downstream consequences for every one involved as there are among other things, legal aspects of FDM data collection, retention and use. The regulatory auditors, FDM / FOQA system suppliers and aircraft manufacturers/airline all have a vested legal interest and we haven't even discussed the safety consequences of that action.

Indeed any regulatory authority would be remiss in their duties if they didn’t ask questions..

Canus Chinookus · Post by **Canus Chinookus** » Thu Dec 01, 2005 8:38 am

Rebel's right... There'd be so many alarms from so many different directions, there's be no way the media wouldn't get a hold of it. It wouldn't be much of a 'rumor'

split s · Post by **split s** » Thu Dec 01, 2005 10:58 am

My wife always says she can't wait until I move on to bigger and better and then I might have to quit swearing so much and acting like I live in the "trailer park". Thanks for proving her wrong(she has read this post) and that I will fit in with some people anywhere, see you at the next park meeting/kegger you bunch of a$$holes.

AHH ha ha
good times, just kidding-- sort of!

flight level 430?

flight level 430?

Re: flight level 430?