Toronto - Delta Airlines CRJ-900 upside down, Flight 4819 from Minneapolis-Saint Paul International Airport (MSP) to Toronto

eman1200 said:
well, my opinion of course, but in the grand scheme of planes crash landing and flipping over, that someone else in another plane shooting a video while sitting there doing nothing except waiting to take off is pretty irrelevant and insignificant. and I, um, know people, definitely not me because when I'm holding short waiting for a plane to take off I'm perfectly still and silent and doing nothing except focusing on the next task at hand that may not be for another minute or so, but other people I know have been known to snap a quick video of a plane landing.
Click to expand...
If you’re part 91, that’s your prerogative. If you’re 121 or 135, you’re likely breaking company rules.
 
172andyou said:
Fair enough. When taken together:
the testimony of the police in that case
the pattern of other accusations (stalking, defamation, etc)
his on camera admissions to going to crash sites taking pieces of planes and refusing to provide them to the NTSB
my personal witnessing of some bad behavior
his being banned from airventure
that none of the people I know that have been in his circle will say anything favorable about him
that he was involved with three known incidents (corn field, electra, cub)
and many, many other experiences

my opinion is that he was up to no good in that incident and others.
Click to expand...

An opinion and 25 cents won’t get you on the bus.

You can take it however you want, but the reality is he wasn’t found guilty, didn’t plead to anything, and the charges were dropped completely.

If you actually threaten a cop’s life, they don’t just drop all the charges.

Ever dealt with small town corruption? What he exposed in that video is exactly how it looks.

So when it comes to how we uphold our Constitution and the facts in America,

“owned a DC3 and threatened to run over cops with it”

->that never happened.
 
Last edited:
Princesspilot206 said:
Whatever the equivalent is then. Happy? Why are you being difficult?
Click to expand...
I'm not being difficult. I'm saying that their regulations may be different than ours. I have no idea what restrictions their regulations put on an air ambulance flight.

There is quite a bit of in-cockpit video online filmed in non-US airliners. Of of which would be a regulation violation on a US airline.
 
Larry in TN said:
I'm not being difficult. I'm saying that their regulations may be different than ours. I have no idea what restrictions their regulations put on an air ambulance flight.

There is quite a bit of in-cockpit video online filmed in non-US airliners. Of of which would be a regulation violation on a US airline.
Click to expand...
For the love of God drop it.
 
Larry in TN said:
I'm not being difficult. I'm saying that their regulations may be different than ours. I have no idea what restrictions their regulations put on an air ambulance flight.

There is quite a bit of in-cockpit video online filmed in non-US airliners. Of of which would be a regulation violation on a US airline.
Click to expand...

can you quote the part 121/135 reg that says no phone video'ing?
 
eman1200 said:
can you quote the part 121/135 reg that says no phone video'ing?
Click to expand...

I’m not going to quote out of our manuals, or the manuals of 135s I have worked at, but many prohibit PED usage, and being FAA blessed documents that makes it good as a 121.X or 135.X FAR

That said, if the park brake is on and you got a while, no one really cares shy of there being a fed onboard (or so I heard)
 
Roller said:
I’m not going to quote out of our manuals, or the manuals of 135s I have worked at, but many prohibit PED usage, and being FAA blessed documents that makes it good as a 121.X or 135.X FAR
Click to expand...

"as good as", but NOT..............
 
I have confirmation the FO was a "Delta Propel" hire who probably had just hit 1,000 hours ... while most applicants can't get a callback from a regional right now with significantly more experience.
 
eman1200 said:
can you quote the part 121/135 reg that says no phone video'ing?
Click to expand...
14 CFR 121.542(d)

You would need a video camera that has no wireless functions to get around that regulation. Most, if not every, operator's operations manual would still prohibit that. Notice that it only applies to control seats leaving an opening for additional crew members (jumpseat) to record, if company procedures allow it.

francisco collazos said:
Just wondering if it's easier to land a CRJ or a 737?
Click to expand...
I have flown both. The CRJs are easier to land.

The 737 lands faster and is slower to respond to control inputs due to its size.

I found the CRJ-900 to be the easiest of the CRJs (-200/700/900) that I've flown to land. The CRJ-200 is lower and lacks leading edge devices. Someone transitioning from GA airplanes would likely consider the CRJ-200 the easiest to land as the sight picture is closer to what they're used to due to its lack of leading edge slats. The CRJ-700 (and CRJ-550) has very stiff landing gear making is difficult to get a smooth touchdown. The CRJ-900 has training-link main gear which makes a smooth touchdown easier to obtain.
 
Larry in TN said:
14 CFR 121.542(d)

You would need a video camera that has no wireless functions to get around that regulation. Most, if not every, operator's operations manual would still prohibit that. Notice that it only applies to control seats leaving an opening for additional crew members (jumpseat) to record, if company procedures allow it.
Click to expand...

I understand that many/most companies specific manuals may prohibit that.
 
Princesspilot206 said:
Source? What is that person's name?
Click to expand...
A copy of the dispatch release was leaked with only the first name showing. But there is only one person with that first name with a CL-65 type rating. UND social media says she was in Propel...and APC says only Propel candidates are being hired right now anyway.

So yes they're passing over probably thousands of candidates, some might even have turbine experience, for people who passed an HR-only interview while still a college student.
 
eman1200 said:
I understand that many/most companies specific manuals may prohibit that.
Click to expand...
The regulation prohibits using a PED with wireless functions while in a control seat, i.e. Bluetooth or WiFi. That covers all of our phones, even if the wireless function is turned off or in airplane mode.

What that air ambulance pilot did would not have been legal in a US part 121 cockpit. Other nations may not be as strict.
 
Larry in TN said:
The regulation prohibits using a PED with wireless functions while in a control seat, i.e. Bluetooth or WiFi. That covers all of our phones, even if the wireless function is turned off or in airplane mode.

What that air ambulance pilot did would not have been legal in a US part 121 cockpit. Other nations may not be as strict.
Click to expand...

I'm kinda done beating this one to death, but solely based on the reference you posted, it makes no mention of being based on bluetooth or wifi being on or off. that would basically mean you couldn't even look at the time on the phone since it has wireless capabilities, and I doubt that's the case. also in the link you referenced is another link to define flight time as during flight until stopped. they were stopped.
 
Roller said:
An opinion and 25 cents won’t get you on the bus.

You can take it however you want, but the reality is he wasn’t found guilty, didn’t plead to anything, and the charges were dropped completely.

If you actually threaten a cop’s life, they don’t just drop all the charges.

Ever dealt with small town corruption? What he exposed in that video is exactly how it looks.

So when it comes to how we uphold our Constitution and the facts in America,

“owned a DC3 and threatened to run over cops with it”

->that never happened.
Click to expand...

Welcome to PoA, Dan. :)
 
Roller said:
Sigh
Click to expand...
I think you'll find that:

the testimony of the police in that case
the pattern of other accusations (stalking, defamation, etc)
his on camera admissions to going to crash sites taking pieces of planes and refusing to provide them to the NTSB
my personal witnessing of some bad behavior
his being banned from airventure
that none of the people I know that have been in his circle will say anything favorable about him
that he was involved with three known incidents (corn field, electra, cub)
and many, many other experiences

has swayed many people's opinions here. Either that or he just has a cloud hanging over him and, despite being a giant among men, the world is conspiring against him.
 
kayoh190 said:
That was my thought too.

Can't speak for Endeavor, but at my shop first officers with less than 100 hours in type have a 15 knot crosswind limitation and cannot takeoff or land when windshear is reported in the vicinity (unless with a check airman, of course).
Click to expand...
If that pilot passed their type ride on 1/9, they could easily be at 100 in type by now.
Roller said:
I’m not going to quote out of our manuals, or the manuals of 135s I have worked at, but many prohibit PED usage, and being FAA blessed documents that makes it good as a 121.X or 135.X FAR
Click to expand...
eman1200 said:
"as good as", but NOT..............
Click to expand...
eman1200 said:
point is that (professional) people are giving princesspilot a hard time about part121/135 regulations that don't exist.
Click to expand...
Just because it isn't in 14 CFR doesn't mean it doesn't carry the power of a regulation.

Air carrier manuals that are FAA approved carry the force of regulation even if they aren't in 14 CFR.
 
eman1200 said:
it makes no mention of being based on bluetooth or wifi being on or off.
Click to expand...
The regulation says, "a personal wireless communications device (as defined in 49 U.S.C. 44732(d)) or laptop computer." The device can not be used. If it only wanted to prohibit the wireless functions only then it would have said so. As written, it prohibits the use of the devices themselves. That is how the FAA interprets and enforces 14 CFR 121.542(d).

Additionally, the term "personal wireless communications device" is define in 49 USC 44732(d) as, "a device through which personal wireless services(as defined in section 332(c)(7)(C)(i) of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 332(c)(7)(C)(i))) are transmitted." You can follow those additional references deeper if you like.

that would basically mean you couldn't even look at the time on the phone since it has wireless capabilities, and I doubt that's the case
Click to expand...
That is exactly how the FAA interprets it. Once you're in a control seat, you have the aircraft's chronometer for checking the time.

also in the link you referenced is another link to define flight time as during flight until stopped. they were stopped.
Click to expand...
14 CFR 1.1 defines Flight Time as, "Pilot time that commences when an aircraft moves under its own power for the purpose of flight and ends when the aircraft comes to rest after landing."

Once you block out you are accruing flight time.
 
Larry in TN said:
I found the CRJ-900 to be the easiest of the CRJs (-200/700/900) that I've flown to land. The CRJ-200 is lower and lacks leading edge devices. Someone transitioning from GA airplanes would likely consider the CRJ-200 the easiest to land as the sight picture is closer to what they're used to due to its lack of leading edge slats. The CRJ-700 (and CRJ-550) has very stiff landing gear making is difficult to get a smooth touchdown. The CRJ-900 has training-link main gear which makes a smooth touchdown easier to obtain.
Click to expand...


700 and the 900 have the same gear design if not the same struts entirely. I been a few years and the part number differences are escaping me. I don’t think I recall anyone mentioning the 900 was easier to land but I’ll take your word for it. Everybody did like the 900 better.

What if they shot that video with their company issued iPad?
 
flyingcheesehead said:
If that pilot passed their type ride on 1/9, they could easily be at 100 in type by now.
Click to expand...

That's true - I was thinking she was typed late in the month. And I'm not familiar with regional airline OE schedules - my shop blocks off a lot of time for OE, and we're very good about putting it off as long as possible before being forced to hit the line. ;)
 
Bacho said:
What if they shot that video with their company issued iPad?
Click to expand...
The iPad is viewed as an EFB only when it is actually running an EFB app. If you switch to another app, it magically becomes a PED.

I know this because I wrote the EFB section of our flight operations manual a few years ago. I think the closest you'll find to a definitive reference is AC 120-76E, section 9.1.1: "For a PED to be considered an EFB, the PED must actively display types A and/or B software applications, (e.g., when a PED is displaying personal email, the PED is not considered an EFB; when the same PED is authorized and actively displaying a Type B aeronautical chart application, it is then considered an EFB)." They go on to say that there should be crewmember training emphasis on this exact point to avoid violations of 121.542(d), which is the reg @Larry in TN referenced.
 
172andyou said:
I think you'll find that:

the testimony of the police in that case
the pattern of other accusations (stalking, defamation, etc)
his on camera admissions to going to crash sites taking pieces of planes and refusing to provide them to the NTSB
my personal witnessing of some bad behavior
his being banned from airventure
that none of the people I know that have been in his circle will say anything favorable about him
that he was involved with three known incidents (corn field, electra, cub)
and many, many other experiences

has swayed many people's opinions here. Either that or he just has a cloud hanging over him and, despite being a giant among men, the world is conspiring against him.
Click to expand...

Based on what you liked with tons of FOIA links in your other post, I’d say you pay him quite a bit of mind

I just like his analysis, unlike Juan he doesn’t just read the reports and interjects some of his experience, which like it or not is significant
 
dmspilot said:
The general public is going to find it interesting that the CA was rejected for employment by Delta for not meeting their standards, only to be sent back to wholly owned subsidiary of Delta to fly Delta's customers on smaller plane owned by Delta.
Click to expand...
If true Delta’s liability will be off the charts.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top