Go-arounds

"Morgans" wrote in message So is a screw up
like that a career ender for both the pilots? Opinions? Doug? Others?

The usual way it works is for the airline to terminate the pilots and let
the union try to get them reinstated. Every case is different from that
point. I've seen cases that involved remedial training and I've seen cases
that involved certificate revocation.

If the termination is upheld, the pilot likely won't be working at another
airline for quite some time. The Pilot Records Improvement Act of 1996 was
enacted for this reason. The Act covers a pilot's previous 5 years of
commercial flying.

Additionally, commercial aviation is a small community. I don't hire charter
pilots if I can't call a contact in the business and get a good
recommendation on them.

D.

Recently, Capt.Doug posted:

"Morgans" wrote in message So is a
screw up
like that a career ender for both the pilots? Opinions? Doug?
Others?

The usual way it works is for the airline to terminate the pilots and
let the union try to get them reinstated. Every case is different
from that point. I've seen cases that involved remedial training and
I've seen cases that involved certificate revocation.

If the termination is upheld, the pilot likely won't be working at
another airline for quite some time. The Pilot Records Improvement
Act of 1996 was enacted for this reason. The Act covers a pilot's
previous 5 years of commercial flying.

Additionally, commercial aviation is a small community. I don't hire
charter pilots if I can't call a contact in the business and get a
good recommendation on them.

So... are you saying that a go-around is considered a "screw-up" in the
business? Or, is the pilot "to blame" if there isn't some other obvious
(and documentable) reason for a go-around, such as a runway incursion? It
seems to me that such practices would encourage poor judgement, if
judgement is considered a blame-able offense.

Neil

On Thu, 18 Nov 2004 11:36:39 GMT, "Neil Gould"
wrote:

Recently, Capt.Doug posted:

"Morgans" wrote in message So is a
screw up
like that a career ender for both the pilots? Opinions? Doug?
Others?

The usual way it works is for the airline to terminate the pilots and
let the union try to get them reinstated. Every case is different
from that point. I've seen cases that involved remedial training and
I've seen cases that involved certificate revocation.

If the termination is upheld, the pilot likely won't be working at
another airline for quite some time. The Pilot Records Improvement
Act of 1996 was enacted for this reason. The Act covers a pilot's
previous 5 years of commercial flying.

Additionally, commercial aviation is a small community. I don't hire
charter pilots if I can't call a contact in the business and get a
good recommendation on them.

So... are you saying that a go-around is considered a "screw-up" in the
business? Or, is the pilot "to blame" if there isn't some other obvious
(and documentable) reason for a go-around, such as a runway incursion? It
seems to me that such practices would encourage poor judgement, if
judgement is considered a blame-able offense.

I believe Capt.Doug's message was answering the question posed in
Morgan's post enquiring about the aftermath of (in Morgan's example
the Southwest accident where they overran the runway and ended up
almost in a gas station) incidents caused by not going around, what
happens to the crews after those kinds of accident.

Morgans wrote:
"Ron Garret" wrote

Even for those go-arounds were the pilot is at blame, a

go-around displays better judgement than continuing a landing and making

a

bad situation worse.


So is a screw up like that a career ender for both the pilots? Opinions?
Doug? Others?

If go arounds were career enders there would be no RJ pilots left
anymore. I have seen some of the most pathetic descent planning by the
pilots of Skywest(Delta and United) and Air Shuttle(America West). They
have been given visual approach and landing clearances 40 miles out and
cannot get down. Nobody to follow just fly to the airport and land.
Can't do it. God forbid he's number three, he'll end up on a ten mile
final at 7000 AGL asking for 360's.

"Neil Gould" wrote in message ...
Recently, Capt.Doug posted:

"Morgans" wrote in message So is a
screw up
like that a career ender for both the pilots? Opinions? Doug?
Others?

The usual way it works is for the airline to terminate the pilots and
let the union try to get them reinstated. Every case is different
from that point. I've seen cases that involved remedial training and
I've seen cases that involved certificate revocation.

If the termination is upheld, the pilot likely won't be working at
another airline for quite some time. The Pilot Records Improvement
Act of 1996 was enacted for this reason. The Act covers a pilot's
previous 5 years of commercial flying.

Additionally, commercial aviation is a small community. I don't hire
charter pilots if I can't call a contact in the business and get a
good recommendation on them.

So... are you saying that a go-around is considered a "screw-up" in the
business? Or, is the pilot "to blame" if there isn't some other obvious
(and documentable) reason for a go-around, such as a runway incursion? It
seems to me that such practices would encourage poor judgement, if
judgement is considered a blame-able offense.


A 'go around' is a sign that the pilot isn't happy with the current
situation and has the ability to obey the ancient law of "What ever
happens, fly the aeroplane"
This reminds me of the 'fuel management' nonsense of some years back.

Recently, Peter Clark posted:

On Thu, 18 Nov 2004 11:36:39 GMT, "Neil Gould"
wrote:
(largely snipped for brevity)
Recently, Capt.Doug posted:

The usual way it works is for the airline to terminate the pilots
and let the union try to get them reinstated. Every case is
different from that point. I've seen cases that involved remedial
training and I've seen cases that involved certificate revocation.

[...]

So... are you saying that a go-around is considered a "screw-up" in
the business?
[...]

I believe Capt.Doug's message was answering the question posed in
Morgan's post enquiring about the aftermath of (in Morgan's example
the Southwest accident where they overran the runway and ended up
almost in a gas station) incidents caused by not going around, what
happens to the crews after those kinds of accident.

Thanks for the clarification, Peter. The post example that you refer to
isn't on this server, only Morgan's largely snipped question. That
completely changes the context of Capt. Doug's response!

Neil

"Peter Clark" wrote in message I believe Capt.Doug's message was
answering the question posed in
Morgan's post enquiring about the aftermath of (in Morgan's example
the Southwest accident where they overran the runway and ended up
almost in a gas station) incidents caused by not going around, what
happens to the crews after those kinds of accident.

Your beliefs are held true. I see that the final report of the Fed-Ex B-727
crash at Tallahassee has been released. It's yet another example where a
go-around would have been prudent.

D.