Aircraft "off runway" in Stuttgart

[Speedpig]

Apparently a Swiss aircraft has left the runway in Stuttgart.
Any news?

[g stall]

METAR: EDDS 260850Z 08002KT 0800 R25/0900N SN BR FEW001 BKN003 M03/M03 Q1012 07650265 TEMPO 0600
Landing distance available 3045 m
Check the braking coefficient in relation to the available RWY length and make your own judgement...

[bla]

This morning at 08h10 local time, a SWISS Embraer 145 with the flight number LX1164 arriving in Stuttgart from Zurich, rolled off the runway into the frozen grass upon landing. Nobody was hurt. There are no visible signs of damage to the Embraer 145 aircraft.
An Embraer without reverse thrust again. Would have been a good investment.
bla

[Speedpig]

An Embraer without reverse thrust again.. should they be operating in such conditions then?

:confused:

Thanks for info bla. Glad it was just an incident.

[g stall]

Blame it on the missing reverse when running off a 3ooom runway with a braking coefficient that could not be better? Gimme a break!

[Speedpig]

So, gstall, what did cause it then?
:8

[Kanger]

It appears that the accident occurred at about 0800 hrs LT, hence the following metar would have be vaild for this period:
EDDS 260650Z 12001KT 1400 R07/P1500D -SN BR VV/// M03/M04 Q1012 RESN 07650265 TEMPO SN
With such a ceiling, they might have been doing a LVP approach & hence flaps 22.
No reverser thrusters certainly can't help things.
Anybody closer know anything??

[Strepsils]

Think some of you are missing the point. The aircraft performance is based on the equipment it has. If the performance says it can land safely in the conditions then the crew were unlucky. If the performance says they shouldn't land then they screwed up. Thrust reversers are nothing to do with it.

Of course, it could have been brake failure, burst tyre, plain bad luck, stupidity or any combination of the above.

[Belgique]

http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=204897
a useful braking technique

[aeroBits]

Here is a picture of the Swiss a/c that according to the article "missed the runway".

Looks more like it rolled off it gently if I may say so in my non expert opinion.

http://a.relaunch.focus.de/img/gen/T/S/HBTSA4sa4fB_Pxgen_r_210xA.jpg

[safetypee]

The aircraft performance is based on the equipment it has. If the performance says it can land safely in the conditions then the crew were unlucky.
A search of recent threads would show that the published performance for operations on contaminated runways cannot be relied on, particularly in relating the ‘actual’ runway friction to stopping distance.
Our industry does not maintain its excellent safety record with luck. Luck is where the safety factors are just good enough; we require safety margins providing defence in depth to accommodate the many threats to safe operations and the assumptions or mistakes that we often make.

If the performance says they shouldn't land then they f*cked up.
If a Captain elects to land in circumstances that appear to be outside of accepted limits then the activity is labelled as an error after the event. It would be more valuable to wait for an investigation to identify the error provoking situations or behavioural factors that enabled the Captain to make his judgment at that time.

Thrust reversers are nothing to do with it.
It would be foolish to dismiss the lack of reverse; see the recent posts in the thread on the 737 overrun at Midway.
JAR-25 NPA 14/2004 allows operators to take credit for reverse thrust on contaminated runways. Operators who do not have reverse due to MEL or equipment choice should make the necessary adjustments to the published landing performance, and in the latter case there would only be one standard.

“a useful braking technique”; the extensive discussion raised doubts about the value of the technique. In addition, it would not affect the published performance on which decisions are based and it is unlikely to make any significant difference in the actual stopping performance without additional landing risks.
The critical safety defences in contaminated operations are the decisions considering the landing taken before making an approach, not the dependence of non standard techniques or luck when on the runway.

[Altyre]

I don't want to take any chances on what happened or blame anyone here but I've been a Captain on this aircraft for 4 years for that very company and I've flown it all over Europe on icy runways, even very icy ones sometimes which makes for a good surprise when the braking coefficient is supposed to be good, and not having reversers has never been a problem. None of the Embraers Swiss-Crossair operate have them and they have been flying around Europe since 1999, if it was really that unsafe, don't you think something like this would have happened before? Their operation subjects them to these conditions 4 or 5 months a year, think about how many flights that is...
Anyway, I think unfortunately this is a golden opportunity for Aeropers, the ex-Crossair will understand :(

[Kanger]

Altyre,
Have you ever had experiences of aqua-planning?
Slush can provide superb conditions for this to occur. Then of course, all the calculation goes out the window regardless how much one lies within the calculated values.
I wonder if this was a factor in this incident?

[Strepsils]

Safetypee - The point I'm making is that thrust reversers are not fitted to the Embraer and not considered in the performance calcs of this aircraft, therefore they are completely irrelevant to this incident. Heck, an arrester hook or a braking chute might have helped as well but you wouldn't consider that now, would you?

[FlyingCroc]

2mm slush but braking action very good (65), strange. Then again having no reversers certainly does not help in this situation regardless if some office fart approved it or not :E

[tiggerific_69]

aeroBits i was a crew member when an embraer 145 went of the runway at another german airport and i can tell you now,it may look like it rolled gently off the runway in a still picture,but when youre rolling across the grass at 70 knots its a whole different story

[Speedpig]

I have it on very good authority that the BACX EMB145 that rolled off the runway end in Hanover last August made a perfect touch down, in the right place but experienced aquaplaning. The root cause was the landing being too soft to spin the wheels sufficiently to create braking effect.
So, on a wet, or contaminated runway, it appears you need to touch down harder than normal to get the initial tyre contact with the concrete and get the wheels rotating fast enough for the brakes to take effect.
The lack of reversers would appear not to be an issue if the wheels were not turning fast enough to cause friction on the runway surface.
I will be reassured when I feel a resounding thump on touchdown.

[Belgique]

Speedpig said:The root cause was the landing being too soft to spin the wheels sufficiently to create braking effect.
So, on a wet, or contaminated runway, it appears you need to touch down harder than normal to get the initial tyre contact with the concrete and get the wheels rotating fast enough for the brakes to take effect. Which is why you need the backstick braking technique. On the wrong (i.e. contaminated) surface, either the wheels won't rotate or the anti-skid will ease up on the braking sufficient to keep the wheels rotating / not blow the tyre. It's called aquaplaning and firm arrivals won't resolve that poor braking condition when there's slush on the runway. "Up elevator/backstick" loads up the main-gear if used early on against braking => much more effective braking.
.
SafetyPee said:The critical safety defences in contaminated operations are the decisions considering the landing taken before making an approach, not the dependence of non standard techniques or luck when on the runway. So when you're down and suspect that you might be running out of bitumen, you must just take your lumps - not use an unapproved (yet proven) technique?
.

[His dudeness]

Can´t comment on the Bigboystoys, but on a Citationjet (without Reverser) Flight Safety recomments stick back after touchdown, on the Reverser equipped Citation Bravo/Ultra they recommend stick forward. Worked well for me (keep fingers crossed).
The CJ2 (C525A) had a several major AD´s to the brake system, I operated the first in Europe and had, prior to the mods, one encounter on a very wet runway (landed during a heavy shower) in EDSB, this runway is something like 9700ft, give or take a bid (was a training flight) we used up more than 2000 meters to stop. Antiskid cycle was waaay to long. This aircraft has a MLM of 11500lbs - and Groundflaps, speedbrakes and thrust attenuators. Vref was something around 110 kts. I guess an Embraer is a tad faster, heavier and doesn´t have Thrust attenuators - I´d guess (wild speculation) that maybe the brake system doesn´t work too well in snow/slush/verywet scenarios...given the record of overruns

[Gretchenfrage]

Met and runway conditions apply to all aircraft/airmen and the law of physics are the same for everyone, even to ex-Crossair pilots and Embraers. So if the other guys and aircraft enroute to and from STR the same days didn't experience a runway excursion there must have been a reason for that one. Either a technical failure or a operational failure, inquiry will tell.
And please spare us the song of how much more difficult it is to operate the regionals and how easy 320's and 737's are. Most of us have passed through the earlier stage and know. Everyone has to get their act together in whatever equippment, bad luck can't hit unilaterally just one category.
GF

[Few Cloudy]

Belgique,

Backstick works fine in many situations but if you try it before the wheels have spun up you will actually decrease the download, because you don't get the countering force from the brakes.

A firm touchdown is needed.

Having said that I made quite a few smooth TD on ice - but luckily had reversers.

FC.

[PieterPan]

Sure, reversers would have helped. After the aircraft has come to a complete stop, hit the reverse, back up to the runway and take the most convenient exit. Taxy to gate, apologise to passengers, report, go home, sure you'll have a better day tomorrow.
:D
Then again, all I have is a drivers license and plans to get a PPL.
Glad everyone is ok.

[Stuck_in_an_ATR]

And please spare us the song of how much more difficult it is to operate the regionals and how easy 320's and 737's are.


I don't want to get into this regional vs. big shiny jet dispute, but I know of at least 4 EMB-145 overruns, all of them on long (though wet/slippery) runways and w/o reverse. In (at least) two of these instances the plane is said to have touched down @ the right place and speed. Given the number of the planes operating it appears that this type is prone to overruns. I suppose there must be something something wrong in the antiskid logic

[Saab 2000 Driver]

And please spare us the song of how much more difficult it is to operate the regionals and how easy 320's and 737's are. Most of us have passed through the earlier stage and know. Everyone has to get their act together in whatever equippment, bad luck can't hit unilaterally just one category.
GF Reversers can slow an aquaplaining aircraft enough till the brakes become effective again. Most jets except the E145 and AVRO have reversers which might explain the higher number of runway overruns by those types.

p.s. GF go grind that axe somewhere else! Perhaps you can ask Blick if they publish your ´expert opinion?´ :mad:

p.p.s. Most regionals are not more difficult to operate. (although an engine failure on a turboprop is quite a bit more intense than on a jet) It´s the type of operation, multiple sector ultra short haul in a high performance aircraft, that poses the danger.

[Gretchenfrage]

Axe, no axe, who cares.
I just think that either these "no rev" planes should not operate in adverse conditions, or only on 5km runways, unless they have performance tables who deal with these conditions and should be adhered to.
I am pretty sure they have that!
There is actually no excuse for runway excursions if there is no technical glitch, i truly hope you might agree with that. Even if you encounter aquaplanning, slipping, late or soft touchdowns, there is the possibility of a go-around which should be taken. On more than 3km this is surely the far better option than any special cooking recipe like flap movement (in such a stress moment!), stick juggling or even rather stupid engine shut-downs.
GF

[Kanger]

Ditto Saab 2000 Driver.

The reversers on the 737 (and presumably on the 320) make soo much difference when it comes to conditions where the book places one in the safe zone (wt. vs factored rwy length vs rwy conditions) and yet one still doesn't slow down.

EDDL R23R on a rainy day with gusty weather and a dash of tailwind at max permitted landing load from the charts (no reversers) would be such an European example. The landing perf. charts allow landing but the rwy with all that muck on the touchdown zone has a different opinion (sometimes).

P.S. From my experience, I'd take a 737 (apart from the 100 & 200s) any day over a E145 from ease of operations, although the all glass EFISs on the E145 is sweet.

[Bus429]

Steering defects on EMB 145 not unknown.

[FlyingCroc]

yeah, something definitley went wrong, what exactly, the investigation will find out, no reason to speculate. However, interesting another (ex) Crossair plane, how many incidents did we see lately. Howeversome aircraft are not as well designed as a Boeing or even an Airbus causing some tricky problems in difficult conditions.

[tiggerific_69]

in reference to the BACX HAJ incident,the aircraft landed further down he runway than it should have but this would have still left ample room to stop had it been a firmer touchdown or normal conditions

[Sheikh Zabik]

Stuck_In_ATR said

"I suppose there must be something something wrong in the antiskid logic"

Absolutely right. This Skoda of the skies is a total pig in less than perfect conditions and it never ceases to amaze how on even the driest of days the anti skid chatters away like a demented monkey. (I only have three thousand hours on type.....so what do I know....before anyone asks)

This Ac was designed for unlimited long American runways where performance is an academic subject you leave behind after groundschool.

Bean Counters Nul points. Again.

[Altyre]

Who wrote anything about regional jets being harder to fly than 320s or 737s Gretchen? I absolutely agree with you that there is no excuse for overruning a runway if you don't experience any problem. And you're right too when you write that all aircrafts must meet specific landing performance, that's all obvious. However, going around after you experience aquaplanning? The few times I've started slipping on an icy rwy, the last thing I wanted to do was to go full thrust with the nose of the aircraft pointing at the wrong direction and me struggling to bring it back in alignment with the runway.
Finally, this post is turning into a stupid Crossair-Swissair battle, don't you guys think this **** is getting a bit old? It certainly doesn't bring any regrets to my decision of leaving this joke of an airline.

[Respryn]

The problem with the Embraer when landing is that it is speed critical. Even if you are only a few knots above Vref, it has a tendency to float, which gives you a lovely soft landing, but the spoilers wont deploy, which subsequently, makes it far more likely to aquaplane. You can greatly improve the situation by being at Vref at the right place (30-50ft), closing the thrust levers and ensuring a good positive touchdown. I have 3000hours on this aircraft and this works. especially at places like CDG, FRA or MUC when it is chucking it down with rain. Going for that illusive "smooth" landing in this aircraft is not a good idea!!!

[Gretchenfrage]

Altyre
With threads getting posted and then removed, some reference i made looks silly, i know. And the old battle you are refering to is not usefull, i agree. The problem is that repeated incidents should not be overlooked and excused, just because there has been some differencies. I stated on another thread: Incidents should be dealt with so as to come to a rate that at least equals the comparable industry. That was and will continue to be my criticism. As long as the too many happenings are explained with new and different training measures, "other" instructors, different sop's, different equippment, lost "...." spirit and so on, you will never get to grounds with the real problem. Many ex-CRX pilots fly for other companies on all kind of equippment. Do you think these guys would have passed any glitch by giving the same excuses? Face and tackle the shortcomings, then the whole company will enjoy a better record.
As to the 145, i don't know this aircraft. All i know is that all of the aircraft i have flown had any kind of shortcoming, on landings and other flight phases. You just have to cope with them!!
By the way: On bigger equippment the landing performance/distance is calculated without reversers, even having them fitted. That means we could land without them on the same runways. I admit that concerning contamination (i.e. ice) the gain is given with approx. 18%. This does help in a tight case.
GF

[320push-n-puller]

-------------------
Quote:
By the way: On bigger equippment the landing performance/distance is calculated without reversers, even having them fitted. That means we could land without them on the same runways. I admit that concerning contamination (i.e. ice) the gain is given with approx. 18%. This does help in a tight case.
---------------
Hi Gretchenfrage,
I'm former (only) regional-Crossairpilot.
For your information, all JAR/FAR part 25 aircraft landing performance
is calculated without reverses.
JAR/FAR 25: A320,737,747,757,767...,318,319,321,SB20,E145..... ...
I was a Captain on the E145 after I have left Swiss as a SFO.
Operating now A319/320/321 for the most Successful European flagcarier!
---------------------------------
Quote(GF):
And please spare us the song of how much more difficult it is to operate the regionals and how easy 320's and 737's are. Most of us have passed through the earlier stage and know. Everyone has to get their act together in whatever equippment, bad luck can't hit unilaterally just one category.
-----------------------------
I think your posting is antisocial! I would guess you are a former
Swissair pilot. If not, I don't know what’s your problem.
Now, operating an Embraer is a pleasure, but it’s got its "hidden" problems.
Brakes are a real problem.
I don’t know for which airline you are flying for, but for me for
the 3 airlines I have worked so far, we used all information
about incidents and accidents to improve safety.
Gretechenfrage you are a disgrace for the airline society!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I really feel sorry for my former-working mates to get postings like this.
I hope the flight deck-crew and cabin-crew Of the EMB in Stuttgart is all right!
Gretchenfrage pls use your brain in the future before you post!!!!!!!

[Gretchenfrage]

320pp
Please use a dictionary before you post. I had a hard time reading yours. I always thought to become a airline pilot you need to be able to understand, read and write in English.
First of all congratulations to your career. But you still seem to have the problem I adressed earlier: Instead of getting to the root of accumulated incidents, you bash others pointing at it.
You might be right in a lot of statements, but if you pretend that Crossair used all information to increase safety - please!!!!!
Allthough I have never operated the nice planes you do, I insist on my point of view that a true airline pilot has to deal with the shortcomings of his aircraft or stop operating it. He cannot screw up and use such glitches as excuse.GF

[320push-n-puller]

Hi GF,
I don’t want to change the subject to a Swissair – Crossair battle.
However, …….
Quote:
You might be right in a lot of statements, but if you pretend that Crossair used all information to increase safety - please!!!!!
I didn’t exactly said that. You were mentioning my English skills, ok no props, I can live with your critics.
But I’m a bit concerned about you; I hope you are not a pilot!
So I take some time to explain to non-professionals how and why incidents and accidents happen.
If there is an event, there is usually a chain of problems. It’s very unlikely an accident happens because of one problem.
That is known to airlines, so airlines try to make sure to cover all aspects.
Airlines implement engineering procedures to reduce technical problems. Training for pilots is always changed to the latest standard.
Now if there’s an accident, authorities analyse why it happened to use the outcome to improve safety.
Air France had recently bad luck. Now rating safety standards only by counting accidents doesn’t work.
Air France is great company (I Don’t work for them), but unfortunately this company had recent accidents. There is no way to say Air France is unprofessional. I have a great respect for this company and I feel very sorry for them.
But if I would say Air France is unprofessional because of these events that would be anty social and a disgrace!!!!
The Swissair MD11 crash is a good example how smoke procedures in all airlines have changed. Nobody was pointing the fingers on Swissair pilots because of this accident.
As I mentioned in my previous post, I was working for different airlines.
I was never Crossair minded, and I fully agree there were problems in the company.
Working for Crossair was always sort of working for a second-class unprofessional airline.
I don’t have to explain why; Swissair pilots were always very good in propaganda.
Now, after all I think it’s sad; I started to believe this non-sense.
Anyway, after I have left Crossair/Swiss, I went working for another regional company.
I had the experience like all other former Crossair pilots.
I mentioned before I was never Crossair minded, I was not happy in the company,
However, working now for a flag carrier (profitable, not like Swiss), thinking back about the proffesionalitly of Crossair, it is unbelievable that a regional airline can have such high savety standards.
If you GF point your fingers on every Crossair event, I can only hope you are not a pilot.
Rating safety standards is not easy as I mentioned before. I think Swissair is one of the most professional flag carrier, but why did the MD11 crash? That was bad luck and yet again the whole chain of events made it happen.
Coming back to the RWY overrun in Stuttgart.
Ive had a similar problem on the on my last days on the embraer.
I was landing on a short RWY reported wet. I didn’t have any braking at all after touchdown.
The reason for that was the WX report was wrong, it wasn’t wet, it was standing water.
I was lucky, but I could have overrun. Did this happen because I’m a former Crossair pilot?
Anyway, if I would have done a landing in Stuttgart on the Airbus on the same day,
I would have briefed for medium auto brakes and full reverse.
Everybody who flies an Airbus knows this would have been a “non event” landing.
However, on the Embrear you can only check landing performance and do the landing…
There is one thing I have to ask. Why do Swissair pilots use accidents as propaganda against another airlines? I think that is unique and still unexplainable,
I have never heard any pilot union saying to a western airline, you are unprofessional and a safety risk because of an incident.
Crossair pilots were mobbed out of Swiss like this.
I am Swiss national, I’m used the this disgrace, but can anybody else understand what is happening??????????????

[Gretchenfrage]

Actually I am a pilot, this might frustrate you. I couldn't care less for ex-CRX, however the fate of Swiss somewhat gets to my wallet aswell, therefore I am interested in smooth operations throughout the whole company. I try to analyse incidents in a unbiased way. Mine and others. Thus let me repeat: I criticise the attitude of not going for the root of a cause, rather diverting from it by pointing at outside influence as excuse. This gets us nowhere.
You state: “Crossair pilots were mobbed out of Swiss like this.“
This is exactly what I meant above. It makes believe that pilots met the requirements, but have been sacked due to provenance and accuses the other pilot body of unfair lobbying. This statement insults all the involved professional pilots and instructors and puts up political pressure to maybe retain pilots with marginal qualifications. Do you have any kind of proof for your statement?
I don’t mean to insult anybody just trying to make a point. Sorry for my unnecessary comment on spelling, that was stupid.
GF

[320push-n-puller]

--------------------------------------
Quote: (GF)
“I try to analyse incidents in a unbiased way. Mine and others. Thus let me repeat: I criticise the attitude of not going for the root of a cause, rather diverting from it by pointing at outside influence as excuse. This gets us nowhere.”
---------------------------------------
You have no details about the incident, you don’t know the aircraft, the “Bundestelle für Flugunfalluntersuchungen” ( “German NTSB” ) has not issued a report yet.
Now you are saying : “I try to analyse incidents in a unbiased way”????????
Are you some sort of muppet or clown?
-------------------------------
Quote: (GF)
“I criticise the attitude of not going for the root of a cause, rather diverting from it by pointing at outside influence as excuse”.
--------------------------------
Who does that? How can you go to the root of a cause?
By having an investigation which takes place right now!
Maybe you should apply in Germany for a job to investigate accidents, the Germans can save money because of your superior ability to judge about accidents without knowing what has happened!!!
------------------------------------------
Quote: (GF)
You state: “Crossair pilots were mobbed out of Swiss like this.“
This is exactly what I meant above. It makes believe that pilots met the requirements, but have been sacked due to provenance and accuses the other pilot body of unfair lobbying. This statement insults all the involved professional pilots and instructors and puts up political pressure to maybe retain pilots with marginal qualifications. Do you have any kind of proof for your statement?
----------------------------------
I am an instructor and I know it is quite easy to influence an instruction or checkride if you want to.
Can you explain me why the Crossair pilots who came across to the Airbus for SS (SwissSun, hope nobody gets any parallels to other “parties” like Aeropers, :O ) had more than half a year for the training after having an “Swissair” assessment? And even lots failed?
(I had less than 2 months for the Airbus transition, the training for the other regional planes I have flown usually took about 3 months and were more stressful.)
Now by saying “Crossair pilots were mobbed out of Swiss like this“ I didn’t exactly meant what you said.
I fully agree with you, there should never be any compromise in qualification, if somebody is not appropriate for a flying post, she/he should be sacked immediately.
I flown for different companies, I mentioned Crossair is absolutely professional.
I said that because I have got comparison to other companies, because I worked for them!
If you still think former Crossair workforce is unprofessional, then I think I lost all my hopes.
If you were right, then 80% of all European regional carriers have to be closed down.
Can you explain me why only Crossair pilots got screened? Why weren’t the Swissair pilots
Screened. Is it again because of the accidents? How about Swissair ? I mentioned before I will not judge about accidents and I will not accuse any airline of being unprofessional because of accidents. I know you Swissair guys try to keep your incidents quiet and you have no shame to point on others!
By saying Crossair is absolutely professional, I don’t exaggerate, I said before I was unhappy flying for crossair, there were issues in the company, I agree.
But I guess you are bright enough not to say Swiss(Air) has no issues !
I meant with “mobbed out” basically the Swissair/Aeropers propaganda campaign to the Swiss public and the politician. After all you succeeded, everybody believed you, Regional routes are not profitable.
But now the time has come, you are Swissair again, no money from the government any more, no Crossair who brings money into the company.
I think accusing other airlines about accidents is a taboo, Aeropers are the only superior guys who have no shame to accuse other airlines to be unprofessional.
But, competition is no taboo, I’m looking forward when you guys get sacked by Lufthansa, or do you still believe by selling tickets for free and having high load factors is satisfactory?
Quote: (GF)
“ I shouln’t care less for ex-CRX, however the fate of Swiss somewhat gets to my wallet aswell”.
So the good old Swissair fate: Money. Now I don’t think an awful lot will understand your
Believing. If you are right and these Crossair incidents are avoidable, is money the only thing you care? How about human lives?
No further comment

[Few Cloudy]

Ladies please!

Let's not get holier than thou about this. About four years ago, I recommended 4 Swissair Captains for direct entry to easyJet. One didn't attend the interview. One failed the interview. One passed the interview but didn't turn up for the course. One failed the course.

After that I didn't recommend any more.

As for aircraft off runways, or on runways but at the wrong field - well we have had some of that too haven't we?

Nice people - flew for em for 25 years but that champions attitude wasn't good.

FC.

[F4F]

Thanks Few Cloudy!

At last a few sensible words and remarks. Also, having worked slightly more than quarter of a century for both fields, I can only concur.

To the moderator: considering all that has been written the last few years on PPRune about Pilotinos vs Astronauts, why not open a new forum, suggested title: the never ending Swiss battle :rolleyes:

[Thin Albert]

i have anotherone ,a couple of years ago ,3 or 4,swissair md 11 pilots failed the simulator at lufthansa for the md 11, dont nail me on this, but approx. 68 out of 74 failed......
could be their hochdütsch was not good enough or..
or they didnt get help from the grammatical director lba inspector in spe gretchenfrage.:O

[Gretchenfrage]

Guys:
You couldn't have proven my point better than with your pathetic answers.
Quod erat demonstrandum.
@Cloudy:
Your majesty: It is with utmost sorrow and grief that we learn that thou shall no longer recommend our humble entity to aviation's heaven.
bye GF

[Sjakie]

As aviation is rather serious business, so should the people working in that environment behave. But whilst reading some postings here, I'm starting to get some unquestionable doubts. I wonder how some of the topic contributors professionally behave in confined spaces like a flightdeck, be it real or simulated.

Off topic now; can we please bring this exhausting, never-ending, completely useless and energy draining Swissair/Crossair discussion to a grinding halt?

Every airline pilot should be able to show a positive learning curve regarding the ability to forget things that happened in the past. Or, in the worst case, be at least able to deal with it and leave it behind. Looks like some (ex) SR/CRX/LX employees are still not able to...

Swissair is dead. Crossair is dead. Swiss is doing bad.

Face it and accept it, or resign. But most of important of all, get a f*cking life.

Sjakie out.

[EDDNHopper]

Sjakie, :ok: :ok:

[Few Cloudy]

Hi GF,

Sorry you find my answer pathetic and feel the need for sarcasm.

In a way it rather highlights my point - that the attitude in Swissair (I don't know how it is in Swiss) was (is?) elitist.

You often heard doubts about flying dead heading on other carriers and had the attitude that we were the "best ever" and that other airlines must be in some way unsafe..

Well having flown since for a couple of carriers elsewhere in the world, I can assure you that other airlines take their business very seriously and indeed have some better procedures. I can well say that because I wrote some of the procedures while with Swissair.

Trouble was, that when Crossair came along, this same attitude was (is) applied to them. If, instead of criticising the young newcomers, we could have given them some help, we could have had a much more solid company.

Sure, Crossair had all the benefits of our checkin and reservation system, which saved them a lot of money in the beginning. Apart from the MD-80 handover (I was involved in that) they were kept pretty seperate, however.

In addition to the attitude problem, our managers - especially Moritz - polarized things to the point of no return. I wonder if Lufthansa is going to be able to inject any sense into the situation.

FC.

[aeropers]

There were and probably still are several airlines that were not approved by the Ops Dept for dead-heading travel, Aeroflot for example, usually because of insurance uncertainties. I wouldn't blame a Swissair pilot for not dead-heading with Crossair if he knew that it was being flown by SR reject pilots, as was often the case.

In Swissair the procedures were written by the CFI and I don't think you held that position did you FC?

In fact I seem to remeber a certain incident in GVA when a MD80 stooged around for a considerable time on one engine in contravention of the basic rule: Land as soon as possible - you've lost all of your reduncancy...

[Welle]

hi all

yesterday i had my duty with an f/o who made his landing in STR three or four aircrafts before the emb145 incident. braking action was reported by tower to be .70, in his opinion it was only medium to poor...;
i don´t know, if he stated his concern to tower.

rgds
welle

[may force be with me]

27 JAN 2006 NTSB: don`t use thrust reverser credit to determine runway stopping distances
The U.S. NTSB urged the FAA to prohibit airlines from using credit for the use of thrust reversers when calculating stopping distances on contaminated runways. The urgent safety recommendation is the result of information learned by the NTSB during its investigation into a fatal runway overrun in Chicago last month. If the thrust reverser credit had not been allowed in calculating the stopping distance for flight 1248, the on-board laptop performance computer would have indicated that a safe landing on runway 31C was not possible. As a result a single event, the delayed deployment of the thrust reversers, can lead to an unsafe condition, as it did in this accident. (NTSB)
http://aviation-safety.net/news/newsitem.php?id=1583

[Dani]

common practise is that performance calculation on dry RWY is WITHOUT reversers, but wet and contaminated is WITH reversers.

[Gretchenfrage]

I want to clarify a few things:
- A E145 left the runway in STR, just as in NUR some time earlier, again it was a Crossair.
- Some selected posts, on this and the earlier thread, many of them have been removed, brought up the issue that this was due to the E145 beeing a pig or that the accumulation of incidents of this aircraft/operator was due to the many more daily t/o+ldg’s compared to others.
- My post subsequently asked to skip these excuses. That no matter what supposed flaws a certified aircraft has, no matter if this is your seventh daily landing in Europe with 20t, or your only monthly and oh so easy landing after 14h nightduty in Godknowswhereville with a hugely precise NPA and 200t: You have to deal with it incident free. That’s our job.
- Some post suggested to wait with any comment until the enquiry was published. However this site is not Reuter’s or NTSB’s, but a rumor network, so forget about that.
- Other posts summed up assessment failures of a pilot group that had absolutely nothing to do with this incident. (Just what do you think was their intention …..?)
- Further posts brought up supposed mobbing by the other union and, worse, by instructors of the other pilot body. Again this has nothing to do with this incident. It is by the way a serious accusation going beyond spreading rumours and needs proof. Otherwise shut up.
- When I stated that I had stakes in the new company, therefore didn’t like accumulated incidents, a post accused me of beeing money-minded. I do this for a living and a decent salary, for God’s sake! Try having Daddy withhold your monthly support and then come back to this professional pilot network.
- If the E145 is a pig, do something to cure these flaws, or operate it in conditions it can handle, but don’t just continue like before, keeping this excuse as joker.
- If the incident rate is above average, go back to scratch and reassess the guys and methods, but don’t blame it on others not involved.
- I never said Crossair pilots were this or that. They seem to do well in other airlines. I said that within CRX/LX-regional there seems to have been, and hard to root out, the old sense of heroism to bend the rules a little. This might have lead to accumulated incidents I would want to cease. That’s why I am imploring to look to the inside aswell as to the outside when dealing and discussing these incidents. This might be called elitist, whatever, I stand to my point.
GF

[Altyre]

"I wouldn't blame a Swissair pilot for not dead-heading with Crossair if he knew that it was being flown by SR reject pilots, as was often the case."
Dear Aeropers
As I said a few days ago, this really stupid SR/LX battle is getting old. I hope that you are joking when you write that SR pilots should not get on a Crossair plane because they will surely die, it didn't seem to bother your management that we were flying your passengers all around Europe...Anyway, I think dear Aeropers that you might want to contemplate the fact that some pilot apply to Swissair (which by all mean was surely a great company to fly for), some apply to British Airways, Air France, United , Cathay Pacific, Air New Zealand or Varig and not necessarily because they couldn't get a job with Swissair. I flew for Crossair for 5 years, I never crashed an airplane (I know you will have a hard time believing that) and I never applied to Swissair (I know you'll have an even harder time believing that!).
I was actually one of the guys telling my Crossair collegues to calm down and try to understand that SR pilots had to defend their own interests but when I read what you write, I think I may have been wrong all this time.
As Gretchenfrage last wrote, there are former Crossair pilots all around the world and we seem to be operating in a very professional manner so try to have a bit of common sense and not to react so stupidly.

[Speedpig]

I'm really quite sorry I started this thread. :uhoh:
I had no idea that my simple request for news about an incident would start a verbal battle between ex Swissair/Crossair or current Swiss crew. I was oblivious to any of the issues mentioned here and am astounded at some of the posts herein.
Perhaps I should rename the thread "Open slanging match here" or "Post your hate mail here".
If those that are berating others on here are commanders, I fear for CRM while you're on duty.
I would like the mods to close the thread please.