Ever stuck your neck out too far? And got away with it?

Thou speaketh too loudly, sir.

The last self proclaimed "PRO" to sound off as loudly
as you.... was anything but "PROFESSIONAL".

BTW...
I'm not at all offended at your flakey antics, other than it's
a shame to see you give real professionals a black eye.


Main Entry: pro·fes·sion·al

1 a : of, relating to, or characteristic of a profession b : engaged
in one of the learned professions c (1) : characterized by or
conforming to the technical or ethical standards of a profession (2) :
exhibiting a courteous, conscientious, and generally businesslike
manner in the workplace


Barnyard BOb -- over 50 years of successful flight


Bob is entirely right here. Not a very professional thread at all. It
didn't read very good at all on the playback. Chalk it up to a little
too much Holiday merry-making. Hope nobody was offended.

Consider it "Withdrawn."
The aviation jury will disregard this thread, and pretend that it
never happened.
(well, professional lawyers get away with this...don't they?) ;-)

pacplyer - happy new year

(Teacherjh) wrote in message ...

I don't even bother thinking of the many times when I landed with
either a helicopter or airplane on fumes and sweating it out the whole
way. Stupid? Nope... just a professional working the best way I can
under trying conditions.


I'd have to assume this is military or life-and-death missions. If not, I'd
question your risk/reward equation.

Jose

Jose
Well, you are polite about it and I appreciate that! If you think
about it, every time a pilot takes off it can very quickly turn into a
life or death situation. I've experienced 18 actual emergencies in
flight that I can relate to and have entered in my logbook. Most were
mechanical failures of some sort and I'm thankful that only one person
aside from myself was ever injured in the process....


The way you had phrased it (and the context in which you replied) made it seem
as if flying an airplane on fumes was just a routine part of professional
flying. I'll grant that the more one flies, the more one runs into the edge of
the envelope simply due to greater exposure. This is true for mechanical
failures that are not the pilots fault as well as for errors in judgement by
the pilot in question. More flying, more chances to make errors. Fact of
life.

The comment however appears to portray a cavalier attitude, and this raised my
eyebrow. You make a reference to "trying conditions" leaving it to our
imagination what they may be - what conditions would lead you to continue to
fly on fumes. I can think of a few (ocean crossing with unexpected headwinds,
fuel leak over mountains, bombing or rescue run in wartime, stuff like that), h
owever in most cases landing at the nearest airport to fuel up long before the
one becmes reliant on Lady Luck would be indicated. Not doing so under those
circumstances would have been called "stupid" in the accident investigation,
no?


To this point I have tried to make a calculated decision for
any given flight and if it was risky I did even more thought
to determine if it could be done safely.


We all do that. In my case, when the outcome (though lucky) takes me too close
to the edge, I do not treat it as "just a pilot working the best way I can..."
I ask myself "what the #$* was I thinking??" and analyse the answer.


...Yet I have made over a hundred free fall parachute jumps and see
no particular danger in that as long as I pay attention to my
equipment and conditions.


What would your reaction on rec.parachuting be to somebody who said that he
can't even count the times he's landed with a chute that lines missing, holes,
or in (too) high winds? (I've only jumped once, back before Lake Elsinore
flooded the airport, so don't really know the edge of that envelope)

It is that to which I was reacting.

Jose

Jose
The lake often flooded the airport even back in the late 50's when I
began jumping there!A lot of my flying was in remote areas, some were
not even mapped yet and many areas the fuel was iffy if it was even
available. there have been times when I was on fumes due to leaks of
one sort or other, or the possibility that the "restless natives" were
going to either use me for target practice, or put me in a cooking pot
if I landed at the wrong place/time.
There are many types of flight operations when an intentional light
fuel load is called for and if it gets cut too close, you end up
making an unscheduled landing. Crop dusting is a good example and I
have over 35 years doing that.
I'm sure if one were to ask, there are those times in nearly every
profession that require working close to the edge and takes judgement
based on experience to be done successfully. The more experience, the
finer the line is and with more chance of making errors.
Happy New Year!!
SelwayKid

"HiM" wrote in message ...

So, it is believable to read about an occasional tight fuel situation;
after all, if it's commercial aviation (esp. int'l) over that many
years, stuff happens.

stuff happens

to do it repeatedly like the fool makes out is bad planning and dangerous
the man is an idiot

I agree with you HiM. I was just trolling him since his claims were
somewhat similar to a fake doctor/pilot who we have here on this side
of the pond. But if anything he says is true, he would be a statistic
by now. No, I suspect he is just a teenager leafing through a pile of
Dad's magazines. I remember dreaming about being "Smiling Jack" when I
was sixteen. :-)

Have a great "summer" in NZ

pacplyer

"HiM" wrote ,snip

ONLY an idiot lifts a plane off the ground with a flight plan that will run
him short of fuel
"HiM" wrote ,snip

HiM, I don't dispute how you state the obvious here. Common sense
says this guy Selwaykid is not a commercial pilot with his kind of
attitude.

But you are actually wrong about this. Polar flights out of Anchorage
with some operators use an FAA exemption to take off with inadequate
fuel for the real intended destination. It's called re-release. It
is perfectly legal, and standard practice to dept for instance: out of
Anchorage, Alaska to London Heathrow (LHR) with fuel that will
knowingly not get you there with FAR121 required int'l reserves.
Though somewhat controversial, this procedure makes the airline money
because they can haul more freight instead of gas. How it works is
that we file a fake flight plan with the FAA that lists Preswick,
Scotland as our destination and then at the computed "re-release"
waypoint the seven tanks on the 747 are totaled up by the flight
engineer and then the F/O compares this number say 107,500 lbs of fuel
to the min 105,300 lbs on the flight plan for re-release. Looking at
weather, the Captain makes his decision. We then are legal to call up
ATC and refile a new flight plan to what was really our intended
destination all along: LHR. If we have say only 104,000, it's now
"assholes and elbows" for us to pull out the new flight plans,
reprogram the three INS's, get more weather for Preswick, break out
and brief the new arrival charts and plates, and mentally prepare for
a long duty day (extra leg to get there.) Last time I did this was
summer 1989. In cruise the sun stayed up all day and all night (just
kind of wobbled around toward the horizon.)

pacplyer

(hope my vulgar cargo language does not offend BYB. It is less than
professional, but that's how we talk in the airplane.)

"pacplyer" wrote in message
om...
"HiM" wrote ,snip

ONLY an idiot lifts a plane off the ground with a flight plan that will
run
him short of fuel
"HiM" wrote ,snip

HiM, I don't dispute how you state the obvious here. Common sense
says this guy Selwaykid is not a commercial pilot with his kind of
attitude.

But you are actually wrong about this. Polar flights out of Anchorage
with some operators use an FAA exemption to take off with inadequate
fuel for the real intended destination. It's called re-release. It
is perfectly legal, and standard practice to dept for instance: out of
Anchorage, Alaska to London Heathrow (LHR) with fuel that will
knowingly not get you there with FAR121 required int'l reserves.
Though somewhat controversial, this procedure makes the airline money
because they can haul more freight instead of gas. How it works is
that we file a fake flight plan with the FAA that lists Preswick,
Scotland as our destination and then at the computed "re-release"
waypoint the seven tanks on the 747 are totaled up by the flight
engineer and then the F/O compares this number say 107,500 lbs of fuel
to the min 105,300 lbs on the flight plan for re-release. Looking at
weather, the Captain makes his decision. We then are legal to call up
ATC and refile a new flight plan to what was really our intended
destination all along: LHR. If we have say only 104,000, it's now
"assholes and elbows" for us to pull out the new flight plans,
reprogram the three INS's, get more weather for Preswick, break out
and brief the new arrival charts and plates, and mentally prepare for
a long duty day (extra leg to get there.) Last time I did this was
summer 1989. In cruise the sun stayed up all day and all night (just
kind of wobbled around toward the horizon.)

pacplyer


i say again any captian who panders to company profit in such a way is far
less than professional

"HiM" wrote in message ...
"pacplyer" wrote in message
om...
"HiM" wrote ,snip

ONLY an idiot lifts a plane off the ground with a flight plan that will
run
him short of fuel
"HiM" wrote ,snip

HiM, I don't dispute how you state the obvious here. Common sense
says this guy Selwaykid is not a commercial pilot with his kind of
attitude.

But you are actually wrong about this. Polar flights out of Anchorage
with some operators use an FAA exemption to take off with inadequate
fuel for the real intended destination. It's called re-release. It
is perfectly legal, and standard practice to dept for instance: out of
Anchorage, Alaska to London Heathrow (LHR) with fuel that will
knowingly not get you there with FAR121 required int'l reserves.
Though somewhat controversial, this procedure makes the airline money
because they can haul more freight instead of gas. How it works is
that we file a fake flight plan with the FAA that lists Preswick,
Scotland as our destination and then at the computed "re-release"
waypoint the seven tanks on the 747 are totaled up by the flight
engineer and then the F/O compares this number say 107,500 lbs of fuel
to the min 105,300 lbs on the flight plan for re-release. Looking at
weather, the Captain makes his decision. We then are legal to call up
ATC and refile a new flight plan to what was really our intended
destination all along: LHR. If we have say only 104,000, it's now
"assholes and elbows" for us to pull out the new flight plans,
reprogram the three INS's, get more weather for Preswick, break out
and brief the new arrival charts and plates, and mentally prepare for
a long duty day (extra leg to get there.) Last time I did this was
summer 1989. In cruise the sun stayed up all day and all night (just
kind of wobbled around toward the horizon.)

pacplyer


i say again any captian who panders to company profit in such a way is far
less than professional



Well HiM,

I agree with you. I am somewhat uncomfortable with many of those FAA
exemptions, but since I don't run the FAA, or own the airline, all I
can do is talk about it here. The Captain that refuses a legal flight
at my company, is immediately removed from the trip and placed into
disciplinary status.
Two crewmembers were terminated two years ago for refusing the flight
due to a typhoon being in the area in TPE. The flight left anyway
without them. Our union ALPA is trying to get their jobs back. But
don't worry. If it's important, I get the CP and the Union on the
phone to discuss it. I don't pander to anybody except my wife. :-)

I rather envy, your armchair aviator one-liners, as they do not
require you to have any experience or knowledge in the matters you are
discussing.

Are you on the South or North Island?



pacplyer

"pacplyer" wrote
snip: A good explanation of re-dispatch


"HiM" replied ...
i say again any captian who panders to company profit in such a way is far
less than professional

Re-dispatch is both legal and safe. What, specifically, do you find unsafe
about this procedure?

Rich

"HiM" wrote in message news:bt29h8

i say again any captian who panders to company profit in such a way is far
less than professional

HiM, it's really not a question of pandering to anyone. A re-release is a
safe and useful technique if rationally applied. Suppose you want to fly
from Auckland to CC, but there may or may not be a strong south wind, and
the CC weather may or may not be iffy at your arrival time, and your best
alternate is Wellington. A re-release setup is simply arranging the plane
and your plan to fly as far as Wellington, and then taking a look at CC. If
the weather has improved, or the south wind wasn't as strong as forecast,
then you're good to go on, and initiate the re-release. If things still
look crappy in CC, you drop into Wellington for more fuel. Very simple, no
risk taken. What you've saved is the requirement to carry [all the way from
Auckland] approach fuel and alternate fuel back to Wellington. This saves
money. In business, this is good, and it was not done unsafely.

Regards,

John Gaquin
B727, B747

"pacplyer" wrote in message
om...
"HiM" wrote in message
...
"pacplyer" wrote in message
om...
"HiM" wrote ,snip

ONLY an idiot lifts a plane off the ground with a flight plan that
will
run
him short of fuel
"HiM" wrote ,snip

HiM, I don't dispute how you state the obvious here. Common sense
says this guy Selwaykid is not a commercial pilot with his kind of
attitude.

But you are actually wrong about this. Polar flights out of Anchorage
with some operators use an FAA exemption to take off with inadequate
fuel for the real intended destination. It's called re-release. It
is perfectly legal, and standard practice to dept for instance: out of
Anchorage, Alaska to London Heathrow (LHR) with fuel that will
knowingly not get you there with FAR121 required int'l reserves.
Though somewhat controversial, this procedure makes the airline money
because they can haul more freight instead of gas. How it works is
that we file a fake flight plan with the FAA that lists Preswick,
Scotland as our destination and then at the computed "re-release"
waypoint the seven tanks on the 747 are totaled up by the flight
engineer and then the F/O compares this number say 107,500 lbs of fuel
to the min 105,300 lbs on the flight plan for re-release. Looking at
weather, the Captain makes his decision. We then are legal to call up
ATC and refile a new flight plan to what was really our intended
destination all along: LHR. If we have say only 104,000, it's now
"assholes and elbows" for us to pull out the new flight plans,
reprogram the three INS's, get more weather for Preswick, break out
and brief the new arrival charts and plates, and mentally prepare for
a long duty day (extra leg to get there.) Last time I did this was
summer 1989. In cruise the sun stayed up all day and all night (just
kind of wobbled around toward the horizon.)

pacplyer


i say again any captian who panders to company profit in such a way is
far
less than professional



Well HiM,

I agree with you. I am somewhat uncomfortable with many of those FAA
exemptions, but since I don't run the FAA, or own the airline, all I
can do is talk about it here. The Captain that refuses a legal flight
at my company, is immediately removed from the trip and placed into
disciplinary status.
Two crewmembers were terminated two years ago for refusing the flight
due to a typhoon being in the area in TPE. The flight left anyway
without them. Our union ALPA is trying to get their jobs back. But
don't worry. If it's important, I get the CP and the Union on the
phone to discuss it. I don't pander to anybody except my wife. :-)

I rather envy, your armchair aviator one-liners, as they do not
require you to have any experience or knowledge in the matters you are
discussing.

Are you on the South or North Island?



pacplyer

nth

i gain my knowledge of safety form having been a locomotive engineer .. and
when i felt it was not safe it did NOT happen with me at the controls

buckled foot plate on a shunt engine? i refuse to use it .. company
bitched and moaned but i didnt endanger lives for profit

ground lights not working .. same thing

your friends did right .. let them sue for wrongful dismissal .....

"Richard Isakson" wrote in message
...
"pacplyer" wrote
snip: A good explanation of re-dispatch


"HiM" replied ...
i say again any captian who panders to company profit in such a way is
far
less than professional

Re-dispatch is both legal and safe. What, specifically, do you find
unsafe
about this procedure?

Rich



i never talked about re dispatch .. pleas read my posts again

i state again ANY pilot who flies with insuffient fuel is a fool .. whether
it be for profit or legal

its legal to drink alcohol and drive a vehicle in my country .. that does
not make it right