I see and agree 100% with your point, but CH isn't in the EU and is a bit more conservative than its neighbors. This is so blatantly clear to all involved parties that there is no interest in improving safety here. Thankfully there is already an effort to change this archaic bullshit.

(Written on 2018年 12月 18日)(Permalink)

Yes, I was referring to the article. The airworthiness directive is about PRS failures that cause autopilot disconnect. How is that related to Asiana 214? Additionally, the AD doesn't even affect 200ERs. Poorly written article IMHO.

(Written on 2014年 11月 21日)(Permalink)

I don't see how this directive is connected to the Asiana 214 accident.

(Written on 2014年 11月 21日)(Permalink)

What is your standard of professionalism to proclaim that only several dozen facilities have professional CPCs? It doesn't matter if you've flown in the system everyday and all over the country for decades, you still have only worked with a fraction of the workforce. The truth is, every facility has controllers who aren't as proficient as their colleagues, but that doesn't make them substandard or dangerous. To state that you think a facility has a 'reputation' to protect is equally absurd as stating facilities are throwing in the towel on training just to fill slots. Plain and simple, if a trainee or CPC cannot handle it 'professionally,' they are not working traffic. The workload at PIT, HTS, CKB etc. is nothing. You want to see professional CPCs, head to Socal or NY approach where freqs. are active 58 seconds out of a minute. The U.S.A. provides you with the safest airspace in the world.

(Written on 2011年 10月 20日)(Permalink)

Exactly! This is absurd for the NTSB to say there was a 'loss of separation' when there clearly wasn't. Visual separation is separation. Plain and simple. The NTSB can bitch all they want, all they can do is make recommendations.

(Written on 2011年 10月 19日)(Permalink)

'Laughlin calls the incident “uneventful,” and says no injuries were reported when two of the plane’s left tires deflated.' 'David Korzep, superintendent of airport operations, says hot brakes caused the front tires to blow after the plane had landed.' After reading this, I initially thought that it was a 757 and they meant that the front 2 tires on the left gear trucks deflated. However, yesterday, flightaware is showing DL 1883 arriving at 6:59pm as an A320.

(Written on 2011年 10月 13日)(Permalink)

This article is horse manure.

(Written on 2011年 08月 03日)(Permalink)

EPA clearance to dump fuel?!?! It was an emergency. The authority of the flight crew reigns superior to any law/regulation not only of the FAA but any other agency or gov't entity. On that note, I'm sure the EPA doesn't like dumps...but it's all relative to safety.

(Written on 2011年 07月 26日)(Permalink)

I love how the media and the general public perceive the runway and taxiway to be the same thing....sigh.

(Written on 2011年 07月 15日)(Permalink)

As the above person mentioned, It's a crosswind correction, not the spoilers being deployed. You can clearly see the left inboard aileron up.

(Written on 2010年 09月 13日)(Permalink)