Never heard this from a pilot before
May 12, 2006, 1:55 pm
#31
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Eugene, Oregon
Programs: UA 1K
Posts: 198
Originally Posted by ILUV767
if you bid for international relief it is really hard to get your three landings in every 90 days as you are basically a systems monitor while crossing an ocean. He has had his currency run out so he cant land the jet.
May 12, 2006, 2:20 pm
#32
In memoriam
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: IAD, BOS, PVD
Programs: UA, US, AS, Marriott, Radisson, Hilton
Posts: 7,203
on TMI
Originally Posted by BenjaminNYC
Sure, WE do, but for the general travelling public, probably not a great thing to say.
irrational, fear-driven world?
BTW, Boston has been pretty much socked in all day - and 7122
ended up cancelled after all (all the other flights have made it in,
so far, although some have taken a bit of an ATC hit).
May 12, 2006, 3:38 pm
#33
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: About
Programs: Some good, some bad
Posts: 811
Originally Posted by as219
But it begs the question: If not being "current" means anything at all, that there's a slightly greater risk of mishap under certain conditions with that pilot at the stick, then allowing a non-"current" pilot to fly no matter what the conditions is flat wrong. Does UX do this as a matter of course?!?
May 13, 2006, 11:22 am
#34
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 171
Visibility in BOS on 5/12
Visibility yesterday in Boston was the lowest I have seen in years.
My office window is about 200 feet above the ground; there were times during the day when I could not see the ground. Landing at Logan yesterday definitely required pilots to be Cat II or even Cat III current.
Low visibility such as this is an extremely rare event in parts of the country. It does not surprise me that a pilot may not be current for Cat II/III conditions.
My office window is about 200 feet above the ground; there were times during the day when I could not see the ground. Landing at Logan yesterday definitely required pilots to be Cat II or even Cat III current.
Low visibility such as this is an extremely rare event in parts of the country. It does not surprise me that a pilot may not be current for Cat II/III conditions.
May 13, 2006, 11:29 am
#35
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: US
Programs: LH and BA
Posts: 2,324
Originally Posted by DataPlumber
There is additional training to make low visibility landings. This may not be the exact regulation but the ghist is in order to do CAT III, or lower visibility landings, the pilot must actually do one every 90 days. If he does not he would be illegal to make a low vis landing. A pilot would need to get checked out again and they would do it during his or her recurrant training, no big deal. IIRC, only one pilot needs to maintain the endorsement as well.
I think this is a very big deal
. This is simulator training and reflects really badly on UA and UX... It means they don't follow trianing properly, I know that simulator time is expensive and not the coolest things for pilots, but if have it lapse I wonder what is going on in maintanance we don't see.
May 13, 2006, 11:39 am
#36
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Texas
Posts: 2,554
This thread is really thought provoking!
May 13, 2006, 11:42 am
#37
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: SFO
Programs: UA 1K MM, Marriott Gold
Posts: 4,768
Originally Posted by KatanaPilot
Visibility yesterday in Boston was the lowest I have seen in years.
My office window is about 200 feet above the ground; there were times during the day when I could not see the ground. Landing at Logan yesterday definitely required pilots to be Cat II or even Cat III current.
Low visibility such as this is an extremely rare event in parts of the country. It does not surprise me that a pilot may not be current for Cat II/III conditions.
My office window is about 200 feet above the ground; there were times during the day when I could not see the ground. Landing at Logan yesterday definitely required pilots to be Cat II or even Cat III current.
Low visibility such as this is an extremely rare event in parts of the country. It does not surprise me that a pilot may not be current for Cat II/III conditions.
May 13, 2006, 12:02 pm
#38
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Southern California/In the air
Programs: DL
Posts: 10,382
Originally Posted by LarryJ
This thread is an excellent example of how a little information can be dangerous.
This situation was not about currency. It was a Captain who was new to the airplane.
EVERY Captain, and EVERY US airline, is has restricted takeoff and landing minimums for his first 100 hours as Captain in the airplane--he'll need an extra 1/2 mile of visibility and he'll have to use descent minimums of 100' higher. If a guy has been a 737 Captain for 20 years and upgrades to 757 Captain then he'll have those more restrictive minimums for his first 100 hours in the 757. Doesn't matter if it's UA or UX, either.
For those airlines that do CAT II and CAT III landings the restriction often extends to 300 hours for those approaches though it is possible for the airline to get approval to avoid that one.
The rule which came from the CAL accident in Denver is different. It requires that at least one of the pilots have at least 75 hours in the type airplane. This prevents two pilots who are brand new to that airplane from being paired together.
I don't understand why anyone would think this is scary. Would you prefer allowing a pilot fly to the lowest possible minimums on his very first flight after training? Is that any less scary?
This situation was not about currency. It was a Captain who was new to the airplane.
EVERY Captain, and EVERY US airline, is has restricted takeoff and landing minimums for his first 100 hours as Captain in the airplane--he'll need an extra 1/2 mile of visibility and he'll have to use descent minimums of 100' higher. If a guy has been a 737 Captain for 20 years and upgrades to 757 Captain then he'll have those more restrictive minimums for his first 100 hours in the 757. Doesn't matter if it's UA or UX, either.
For those airlines that do CAT II and CAT III landings the restriction often extends to 300 hours for those approaches though it is possible for the airline to get approval to avoid that one.
The rule which came from the CAL accident in Denver is different. It requires that at least one of the pilots have at least 75 hours in the type airplane. This prevents two pilots who are brand new to that airplane from being paired together.
I don't understand why anyone would think this is scary. Would you prefer allowing a pilot fly to the lowest possible minimums on his very first flight after training? Is that any less scary?
May 13, 2006, 12:13 pm
#39
Join Date: Feb 2004
Programs: AA 'kettle', Marriott Gold, ICH Gld, Hertz 5*
Posts: 5,258
May 13, 2006, 2:29 pm
#40
Suspended
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: seattle
Programs: UNITED 2K HILTON DIAMOND
Posts: 2,774
Originally Posted by SJC1K
For pilots, a lot of the currency (currentness?) regulations are of the form "You must have done maneuver x in an actual aircraft or in a simulator y times in the last 90 days to be legal to do it in an aircraft with anyone except an instructor on board." If a pilot's schedule lets him fall out of currency on one aspect, what do you expect him to do, rent a CRJ for an hour to get current again? It's up to the airline to schedule duty or simulator time to keep him current.
May 13, 2006, 3:17 pm
#41
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 579
Originally Posted by EmeraldCityFlyer
Ok, since those transpac flights are so long, what happens if the pilot's currency was good to go when we took off but expires halfway across the ocean? Should we worry about this, or just stick to wondering if our meal choice will still be current when the FA gets to our row?
May 13, 2006, 3:46 pm
#42
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: SFO
Programs: UA1P
Posts: 613
Originally Posted by roundtheworld
I think this is a very big deal . This is simulator training and reflects really badly on UA and UX... It means they don't follow trianing properly,....
. This is simulator training and reflects really badly on UA and UX... It means they don't follow trianing properly,....
May 13, 2006, 7:22 pm
#43
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Washington DC
Posts: 243
Originally Posted by roundtheworld
I think this is a very big deal . This is simulator training and reflects really badly on UA and UX... It means they don't follow trianing properly, I know that simulator time is expensive and not the coolest things for pilots, but if have it lapse I wonder what is going on in maintanance we don't see.
. This is simulator training and reflects really badly on UA and UX... It means they don't follow trianing properly, I know that simulator time is expensive and not the coolest things for pilots, but if have it lapse I wonder what is going on in maintanance we don't see.For UAL, every nine months (some fleets go every 6 months) pilots go thru recurrent training. At that time we do low visability approaches (cat 2/3) in the sim. That recertifies us in the eyes of the FAA. There are just too few opportunites to have to do a real Cat 2/3.
In all likelyhood regarding the OP....as another has stated, the Captain was probably new and therefore subject to the higher minimums. If Boston was truly that bad with weather, the Captain would not be legal to even depart based on the forecast.
DC
May 14, 2006, 8:45 am
#44
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 38,410
Originally Posted by qasr
Not really that simple. You assume that an alternate airport with better conditions exists, can handle that aircraft and is in range at the time the pilot discovers he cannot land at BOS. Not simple at all.
May 14, 2006, 8:48 am
#45
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 38,410
Originally Posted by 12172003
That sounds like if you went to a psychiatrist and needed blood to drawn. The psychiatrist refers you to another doctor because he hasn't drawn blood in 10 years. Most Psych's don't deal with blood, are still allowed to draw blood but are not current (and proficient) so therefore does not feel comfortable. Would this concern you? It really shouldn't. I (used to) see a similiar scenario with MD's all the time.