CRW UPS Crash

James331 said:
Yeah, people just need to just refuse to fly crap equipment, nowadays just take the next job listing in a properly equipped plane
Click to expand...

This ignores one small fact. Seniority. Until you make it to the majors or semi-majors, your statement has merit but after that...you just don't understand that your seniority number is life.

Look at it this way....you get in an argument with your wife because she has aged and isn't as perky and beautiful as when you married her....so let's just start over with a new model....Oh, now you have to go back and buy a new home, new furniture, split bank accounts etc. Once you hire on with a major, even in
the pilot shortage of today, you are married pretty much for life. Me personally! I quit more "good" jobs until I was hired here thirty years ago (a few of them quit me via bankruptcy - and then I was forced to go to the bottom and start over again and again).

Also, please describe the properly equipped airplane?
Is it the ability to fly all the approaches available at an airport? Ever hear of a Minimum Equipment list? Deferrals?
 
James331 said:
My thought is why didn't they shoot the LPV? I'd imagine a real cargo operator would at least have a WAAS box in that plane.
Click to expand...
Current airliners don't have the ability to shoot an LPV approach either.

At least that's what UAL, AAL, ENY, SKW, etc are telling us. A guy from AAL told me last week that they have a waiver in with the FAA for 2020.
 
Radar Contact said:
Current airliners don't have the ability to shoot an LPV approach either.

At least that's what UAL, AAL, ENY, SKW, etc are telling us. A guy from AAL told me last week that they have a waiver in with the FAA for 2020.
Click to expand...
Add EDV to the list. We don't even have VNAV
 
Well, to be fair, pax mainline pilots seldom do circle at night in anger. It's like proffering the argument you're not a racist, when you live in Maine.
 
jordane93 said:
Add EDV to the list. We don't even have VNAV
Click to expand...

Your 900s don't have the VNAV button? All our 900s and half the 700s have the VNAV option. We're at least allowed to use it on STARs. However, we have to disable LPV if we accept a GPS approach. If the FMS goes into LPV we have to abandon the approach and divert to an ILS/VOR/LOC airport. :mad:
 
Bozo said:
Looks like it's just a LOC5 approach now according to Airnav, and the EMAS has been decommissioned for runway 23. Crazy.
Click to expand...

That 'decommissioning' may have been the result of a landslide that took a good bite out of the artificial hill the airport is on.
 
ARFlyer said:
Your 900s don't have the VNAV button? All our 900s and half the 700s have the VNAV option. We're at least allowed to use it on STARs. However, we have to disable LPV if we accept a GPS approach. If the FMS goes into LPV we have to abandon the approach and divert to an ILS/VOR/LOC airport. :mad:
Click to expand...
Nope. None of our planes have VNAV. We just follow the snowflake all the time.
 
MD11Pilot said:
This ignores one small fact. Seniority. Until you make it to the majors or semi-majors, your statement has merit but after that...you just don't understand that your seniority number is life.

Look at it this way....you get in an argument with your wife because she has aged and isn't as perky and beautiful as when you married her....so let's just start over with a new model....Oh, now you have to go back and buy a new home, new furniture, split bank accounts etc. Once you hire on with a major, even in
the pilot shortage of today, you are married pretty much for life. Me personally! I quit more "good" jobs until I was hired here thirty years ago (a few of them quit me via bankruptcy - and then I was forced to go to the bottom and start over again and again).

Also, please describe the properly equipped airplane?
Is it the ability to fly all the approaches available at an airport? Ever hear of a Minimum Equipment list? Deferrals?
Click to expand...

Seniority is life, life, interesting choice of words.


And asking for a WAAS box in a freight ship ain't asking that much, but again maybe this is why I'm not cut out to fly crap cargo or for the airlines.

Oh well, I'll just be over here not doing circles to minimums on super crap days when I could have just shot a LPV easy peasy.
 
Last edited:
James331
Your comments sound like the pilots have a choice in how the planes are equipped. You don't fly in the commercial world or you wouldn't say things like that. Please remember my comment previously....the decision makers don't die, they send flowers.
 
MD11Pilot said:
James331
Your comments sound like the pilots have a choice in how the planes are equipped. You don't fly in the commercial world or you wouldn't say things like that. Please remember my comment previously....the decision makers don't die, they send flowers.
Click to expand...
James is saying pilots have a choice of employers.
 
MD11Pilot said:
James331
Your comments sound like the pilots have a choice in how the planes are equipped. You don't fly in the commercial world or you wouldn't say things like that. Please remember my comment previously....the decision makers don't die, they send flowers.
Click to expand...

Lol, actually my ATP has been putting food on my table for about a decade now, I just don't lick boots or risk my life for top ramen, I am the decision maker and I don't fly crap aircraft or fly for crap employers, been working pretty well thus far.
 
James331 said:
Lol, actually my ATP has been putting food on my table for about a decade now, I just don't lick boots or risk my life for top ramen, I am the decision maker and I don't fly crap aircraft or fly for crap employers, been working pretty well thus far.
Click to expand...

And you are the person where you work that decides exactly what equipment is installed? You pay the bills?

You have made several broad brush statements about how you wouldn't work for such an outfit that wasn't equipped the you felt they should be...great, I am very happy for you that you have never had to build time, never had to fly the freight, checks etc. at night. I have been interviewed and I was the interviewer several times and I never ever met a pilot that didn't want to be there. Most complained afterwards about the job but they dealt with the job as required by the employer. Why wasn't this aircraft equipped to your liking? Money and unless YOU were the one making the decisions, you flew with what you had to fly with. I have no idea of what type of equipment that you fly with now and I hope that during your training you were presented with scenarios of inoperative engines, radios, instruments etc. or did you tell the examiner that you refused to fly "crap" equipment so this would never happen to you? I work in a world of minimum equipment lists, deferrals, and gasp, equipment that fails en route. Most pilots are Type A, get the job done. Why didn't this crew fly the other approach? I don't know and neither do you and I dare say that you do things in your job that I would question...but I don't know what your job is and I would be wrong to comment until I knew ALL the circumstances.
My company had extremely senior Captains that flew the 727 when they could have been flying the 747. Why? It fit their circumstances, it made sense to them.
 
Man you got the level of thinking that's resulted in bunches of bent aluminum and blood.

Yes I make the decision to fly, and no I have not flown a aircraft which was not fit for the mission in my opinion.

I sign for the plane, I am responsible for the pax, plane and my own saftey, ofcourse I trained to deal with failures and have dealt with them, but I don't accept chronic failures or lack of needed equipment as the norm, I'm also not a "welllll, it wasn't broke when I took off" type.
I shoot to get the "job done", but I ALWAYS go home at the end of the day, I'm known to take every flight that I legally and safely can, and I have worked for people and companies who were responsible enough that the few times I said I wasn't going to fly, they were more than fine with it.

The hardest part of flying is knowing when to say no.
 
Bozo said:
Is there not an ILS 5 approach? Used to be one there years ago. Why would they choose to circle, winds were within limits according to post 4 above.

Looks like it's just a LOC5 approach now according to Airnav, and the EMAS has been decommissioned for runway 23. Crazy.
Click to expand...
EMAS???
 
luvflyin said:
EMAS???
Click to expand...
Engineered Material Arresting System. It's a surface in the overrun designed to allow an overrunning aircraft to sink in and not depart the airfield boundary. There have been several overrun incidents that EMAS could have minimized loss of life and aircraft damage. I imagine it was installed at CRW due to the big drop off at the end of the runway. You will also find them at airports on the water, like LGA.
 
AWACSEng said:
Engineered Material Arresting System. It's a surface in the overrun designed to allow an overrunning aircraft to sink in and not depart the airfield boundary. There have been several overrun incidents that EMAS could have minimized loss of life and aircraft damage. I imagine it was installed at CRW due to the big drop off at the end of the runway. You will also find them at airports on the water, like LGA.
Click to expand...
Oh. Doesn't seem like something that would be "decommissioned." Maybe it got used and it was cheaper to just pave it than repair it
 
CRW had a landslide on the man made hill that extended 5/23 a few years ago. I think the decommissioned happened as a result of that.
 
???????????????????

What a stupid statement. Bent aluminum and blood? Obviously you are the greatest pilot that has ever take off and we are so fortunate that we are allowed to read your opinions. How in the world did I ever survive 40 years and 22000 hours without you. Please come to my company...we have a lot of others just like you...in management.

have a great day, I have to go and try to not die...but if I do, then I know that you will tell everyone that it was my fault. I bet you told Al Haynes it was his fault that he didn't know about the crack in his engine two turbine that killed all those people...the shame, if only you had been there to tell him.


James331 said:
Man you got the level of thinking that's resulted in bunches of bent aluminum and blood.

Yes I make the decision to fly, and no I have not flown a aircraft which was not fit for the mission in my opinion.

I sign for the plane, I am responsible for the pax, plane and my own saftey, ofcourse I trained to deal with failures and have dealt with them, but I don't accept chronic failures or lack of needed equipment as the norm, I'm also not a "welllll, it wasn't broke when I took off" type.
I shoot to get the "job done", but I ALWAYS go home at the end of the day, I'm known to take every flight that I legally and safely can, and I have worked for people and companies who were responsible enough that the few times I said I wasn't going to fly, they were more than fine with it.

The hardest part of flying is knowing when to say no.
Click to expand...
 
MD11Pilot said:
Cargo Cutout is a 121 thing. The post was a copy of an internal to my pilot group post showing that unless forced, a company expects Cat 3 performance on Cat 1 equipment. Most of the private aircraft flown here have better capabilities than the 135 planes that fly the freight. For want of GPS capability to shoot an GPS approach but having to do VOR circle that put them into a situation that cost them everything.
Click to expand...

Cargo cut out or not (which I agree is BS), it has nothing to do with a 135 feed operation. So, lets put technology in the planes, but then when pilots get to the point they use the technology, people turn around and scream "children of the magenta line". Which way do you want it, can't have both.
 
MD11Pilot said:
???????????????????

What a stupid statement. Bent aluminum and blood? Obviously you are the greatest pilot that has ever take off and we are so fortunate that we are allowed to read your opinions. How in the world did I ever survive 40 years and 22000 hours without you. Please come to my company...we have a lot of others just like you...in management.

have a great day, I have to go and try to not die...but if I do, then I know that you will tell everyone that it was my fault. I bet you told Al Haynes it was his fault that he didn't know about the crack in his engine two turbine that killed all those people...the shame, if only you had been there to tell him.
Click to expand...

Not working for bad operators, flying chronically broke aircraft, or aircraft not well equipped for the flight is a dumb statement?
Why because it's obvious?


Lol, doesn't even have to do with being a pilot, and sure doesn't have to do with taking off, quite the opposite.

As for your time, who knows, I've worked with folks who had waaaay more time than me who were useless, much like a crackhead bum living in the north, no idea who they last but they do, not saying that's the case with you, heck not even saying it was a lack of equipment, MX, or QOL which resulted in this crash, just simply saying don't fly junk or work for junk operators, it's not worth it and especially nowadays the next guy looking for a pilot is just a mouse click away.
 
I'm just an observer, but if this had been a doctor taking his family to a football game, wouldn't we be talking about how foolish he was to make this approach under the conditions with the equipment he had?
 
Last edited:
James331 said:
Didn't save them a lot of money on that one now did it.

Yeah, people just need to just refuse to fly crap equipment, nowadays just take the next job listing in a properly equipped plane

Heck depending on what part of the country you're in, you really limit your options and weather minimums not having a WAAS ship, I can't see how flying IFR for hire NOT having WAAS SAVES MONEY.


I mean for a VFR only operation, yeah sure, or if you're just working a location that is CAVU 90% of the year, but man having folks do a circle to land in crap weather, with probably little sleep, little pay and high stress, all because you're cheap, F' that.






Is there a difference? ;)
Click to expand...
It's amazing to me that we're at a point in time where not being able to shoot an approach down to LPV mins is flying 'crap equipment,' and pilots who accept the 'crap-non LPV-capable' aircraft are "boot-lickers."

There's inherent risk in anything. There are operators who don't install WAAS GPS's in aircraft, there are operators who don't fly single-pilot. I know there's even operators who ask their pilots to fly single-engine aircraft into marginal-to-hard IFR weather to get the job done. To some, that may be asinine, to others, it may be an acceptable risk. Who am I to judge? But to say that because their aircraft wasn't able to fly down to LPV mins shows them as "yes men/boot lickers" is quite the stretch.
 
KSCessnaDriver said:
Cargo cut out or not (which I agree is BS), it has nothing to do with a 135 feed operation. So, lets put technology in the planes, but then when pilots get to the point they use the technology, people turn around and scream "children of the magenta line". Which way do you want it, can't have both.
Click to expand...

I am 100% for requiring the equipment and it is coming. It is not a matter of how I want it but what is best for safety etc. Let's put a real pilot as head of the FAA, someone who actually flew the real world. I also agree about children of the magenta line. The problem as I see it, is a balancing of standards and common sense thinking. Making broad brush statements based upon "opinion" and looking through rose colored glasses is stupid.

Why was it foolish to fly a legal approach? Circling approaches cut the margin of safety drastically but the FAA deems them legal and in the eyes of management "safe". Have I ever refused to fly a broken, questionable aircraft, in bad weather? Many many times and been called on the carpet, threatened with making a career decision, walked the picket line over safety but I also recognize that what I am comfortable with may be a lot different than what someone else is due to experience.
 
Sluggo63 said:
It's amazing to me that we're at a point in time where not being able to shoot an approach down to LPV mins is flying 'crap equipment,' and pilots who accept the 'crap-non LPV-capable' aircraft are "boot-lickers."

There's inherent risk in anything. There are operators who don't install WAAS GPS's in aircraft, there are operators who don't fly single-pilot. I know there's even operators who ask their pilots to fly single-engine aircraft into marginal-to-hard IFR weather to get the job done. To some, that may be asinine, to others, it may be an acceptable risk. Who am I to judge? But to say that because their aircraft wasn't able to fly down to LPV mins shows them as "yes men/boot lickers" is quite the stretch.
Click to expand...

Thank you! You get it.
 
Here is the Google Map image of the end of the runway. You can see that the EMAS was wiped out by the landslide. Also note the runway threshold is now displaced, which would necessitate shutting down the glideslope. From the looks of things they are trying to rebuild the hill. That EMAS saved a bunch of lives years ago when a CRJ aborted takeoff late and wound up in it.
 

Attachments

  • Untitled.jpg
    Untitled.jpg
    219.8 KB · Views: 43
MD11Pilot said:
Thank you! You get it.
Click to expand...

I'm confused on your position on this accident. You said it's sickening that this aircraft wasn't WAAS equipped and that most likely this is due to cost cutting. Basically, the accident might have been prevented if they had better avionics? You also describe "safety cost avoidance" procedures that exist in the culture of some companies. If they aren't equipping the aircraft as best they can, I wonder if short cuts are in maint as well???

Now, I don't always agree with James but if he can bypass companies that don't have the money to make safety a priority, then more power to him.
 
Last edited:
midwestpa24 said:
Here is the Google Map image of the end of the runway. You can see that the EMAS was wiped out by the landslide. Also note the runway threshold is now displaced, which would necessitate shutting down the glideslope. From the looks of things they are trying to rebuild the hill. That EMAS saved a bunch of lives years ago when a CRJ aborted takeoff late and wound up in it.
Click to expand...

Yep. That EMAS saved the passengers from the idiots flying that day. Because of them, I have to deal with BS rules and procedures now.
 
Bozo said:
Looks like it's just a LOC5 approach now according to Airnav....
Click to expand...
LPV minimums are also notam'd n/a, probably for the same reason as the glide slope deactivation.

!FDC 7/9923 CRW IAP YEAGER, Charleston, WV. RNAV (GPS) Y RWY 23, AMDT 1A... LPV MINIMUMS NA. 1704131650-1711231650EST
Click to expand...

Interestingly, the circling vis for the VOR-A is the same or better than LNAV/VNAV straight-in mins for 5.
 
MD11Pilot said:
...Why was it foolish to fly a legal approach? Circling approaches cut the margin of safety drastically but the FAA deems them legal and in the eyes of management "safe"...
Click to expand...


Legal and safe aren't always one in the same.

With your experience you know this.



Sluggo63 said:
It's amazing to me that we're at a point in time where not being able to shoot an approach down to LPV mins is flying 'crap equipment,' and pilots who accept the 'crap-non LPV-capable' aircraft are "boot-lickers."

There's inherent risk in anything. There are operators who don't install WAAS GPS's in aircraft, there are operators who don't fly single-pilot. I know there's even operators who ask their pilots to fly single-engine aircraft into marginal-to-hard IFR weather to get the job done. To some, that may be asinine, to others, it may be an acceptable risk. Who am I to judge? But to say that because their aircraft wasn't able to fly down to LPV mins shows them as "yes men/boot lickers" is quite the stretch.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but here's the deal, if you don't have a WAAS, but you're just flying into ILS or otherwise good straight in airports, or flying in good weather fine.

But when you're sending low paid, over worked people out in a plane that you're too cheap to outfit with a frickin 430, making them do a circle to land at mins at a airport like that, that's adding risk for the sake of being a cheap SOB.

Yeah it's all risk management, but in the above case you're adding a good chunk of risk into a working IFR operation, ontop of your poorly paid and rested crews, for the sake of what's small potatoes money wise.
 
Last edited:
MD11Pilot said:
I am 100% for requiring the equipment and it is coming. It is not a matter of how I want it but what is best for safety etc. Let's put a real pilot as head of the FAA, someone who actually flew the real world. I also agree about children of the magenta line. The problem as I see it, is a balancing of standards and common sense thinking. Making broad brush statements based upon "opinion" and looking through rose colored glasses is stupid.

Why was it foolish to fly a legal approach? Circling approaches cut the margin of safety drastically but the FAA deems them legal and in the eyes of management "safe". Have I ever refused to fly a broken, questionable aircraft, in bad weather? Many many times and been called on the carpet, threatened with making a career decision, walked the picket line over safety but I also recognize that what I am comfortable with may be a lot different than what someone else is due to experience.
Click to expand...

MD-11 in the name, I'd put a 50/50 shot on you flying for UPS. Either way, tell UPS to pony up the money to get feed aircraft that are well equipped. Look at the difference between how UPS and Fedex run feeders. FedEx owns all the 208 and ATRs, they're well equiped, have always paid well and have been historically decent planes to work. UPS feeders are all about the cheapest possible plane for UPS to maximize their profit.
 
50/50 are good odds. Tell UPS to pony up....oh you very funny guy. The last contract took almost 7 years to negotiate. It took an act of Congress and other countries threatening non entry to get TCAS. It is a good company and they pay very well...now, but they do not spend a penny more than required and certainly wouldn't spend it on another companies planes.

Fed Ex....well their not UPS. We like to say that Fed Ex is an airline with trucks...UPS is a trucking company with planes. And I am blessed to be there.

One thing to remember also...UPS really has nothing to do with the feeders. They just contract with companies to provide a service to them.
 
MD11Pilot said:
One thing to remember also...UPS really has nothing to do with the feeders. They just contract with companies to provide a service to them.
Click to expand...
I was going to mention that but I wasn't sure. I think these contracts often go to the lowest bidder.
 
If it takes an act of congress for your company to make positive changes, ya working for the wrong company brother.
 
James331 said:
Lol, actually my ATP has been putting food on my table for about a decade now, I just don't lick boots or risk my life for top ramen, I am the decision maker and I don't fly crap aircraft or fly for crap employers, been working pretty well thus far.
Click to expand...
There is a HUGE difference between flying crappy planes and planes that are not equipped with the latest and greatest.
Most airliners are not equipped with much of the equipement in GA airplanes, yet in many respects they have older stuff that does much more that GA doesn't. You're sort of comparing apples to oranges.
 
Kritchlow said:
There is a HUGE difference between flying crappy planes and planes that are not equipped with the latest and greatest.
Most airliners are not equipped with much of the equipement in GA airplanes, yet in many respects they have older stuff that does much more that GA doesn't. You're sort of comparing apples to oranges.
Click to expand...

And comparing a airliner and it's normal routes to a shorts cargo hauler and it's routes is also apples to oranges.
 
James331 said:
And comparing a airliner and it's normal routes to a shorts cargo hauler and it's routes is also apples to oranges.
Click to expand...
Why? I may be wrong here but I don't get it.
 
Kritchlow said:
Why? I may be wrong here but I don't get it.
Click to expand...

Would a B747 have had that crew at the helm?

Would the 47 have shot that same circling approach into that airport?
 
James331 said:
Would a B747 have had that crew at the helm?

Would the 47 have shot that same circling approach into that airport?
Click to expand...
Okay..... still don't get it. That crew is likely familiar with all those procedures.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top