Speed Question

[Polarbear]

Originally Posted by mikecweb

I think trying to hold pilots to high standards isn't why this industry and country are so effed up. I think it's effed up that there are pilots out there lacking knowledge of basic flight rules. Having a high time captain is no excuse for lack of knowledge. Mistakes do happen. Incompetency should not be forgiven.

Nothing wrong with holding people to a higher standard. The problem is in the way it is done.

When all you do is criticize and bash someone for a mistake instead of educating them, then you are creating additional problems and not fixing the original. Sometimes basic rules can be forgotten when either brand new to an area of operation or when you have so much experience you begin to slack. Does that mean that person should be crucified on the spot, no questions asked? What good does that do?

I am not sure how it is in the pilot ranks, but on the mtx side the philosophy of "Make a mistake? YOUR FIRED!!!" has been eliminated at most levels in favor of: Make a mistake? Own up to it (admit it), ask yourself how it happened, re-educate, get back to work.

From what I understand the change in philosophy with US airlines started about 10-15 years ago. In that time frame incidents resulting from mtx have dropped dramatically.

Which brings me to my last topic: have you ever made a mistake?

If your answer is no, then I bow to you since your the next messiah

That being said, what happens after you make that mistake? Do you usually make it again? 99.9% out there usually do not. They learn from it and that experience cures most incompetence.

Re-educate, then punish. It is a philosophy that works. If you suppress questions based on: "Since you asked a 'stupid' question you must be incompetent" then you create an atmosphere where the questions that really need to be asked never get asked and that is worse then letting the isolated incident go.

Now that being said.......If he makes the same mistake again or asks the same questions over and over.... Fry the sucker.

I close with this:

Who would you rather have fly the plane:

1. The guy who makes the mistake, doesn't realize it, doesn't ask the question, and possibly keeps doing it?

2. The the guy who made the mistake, realized he made it, owns up to it, asks the question, and probably won't make the same mistake?

[dc3flyer]

Originally Posted by BobDDuck

This story has been told two ways. In the first version they thought (and discussed) that the higher speed assignment trumped slowing below 10 just like the Horizon crew Polarbear talked about. I don't get how somebody could think that. It is a basic part of high performance airplane flying. In the second version they just forgot to slow and caught it when asked by ATC. Sure. That happens all the time. No harm no foul.

Again, where are there two different versions of the story? In my first post, I said nothing about "thought and discussed". I simply stated that we were level and still mainainting 300 knots. I (being wrong) assumed that since my captain maintained speed that we were fine. When querried by ATC, I (being commander of the radios on this leg) told ATC we were assigned 300 knots. I didn't mention anything in this post about my captain telling me he messed up because I wanted to hear how others thought, without any insight from me (or my captain for that matter).

In the second post (or story), I explained that my captain said we should have slowed down, he just for some reason didn't put two and two together, ie. we are below 10,000 forget about the speed you have bugged. AFTER ATC questioned us, is when something snapped and he realized we were too fast. I was still under the impression (before my captain said we weren't) that we were in the right.

My take on the situation is this: He messed up by not slowing down. Mistake #1 on his part. Not intentional. I messed up by not questioning him before ATC did it for me. Mistake #1 on my part. Also not intentional.

It is not that my captain blatently ignored a regulation. I did, however, have an incorrect knowledge of the regulation, as I believed that ATC could allow you or even request that you maintain a speed greater than 250. Come to find out only the Administrator can. A simple mistake could have been elimated, had I a better understanding. Now, I do. It seems to me that is the reason companies decide to put less experienced people in the right seat instead of the left, because we all still have something to learn. Not everyone knows every thing exactly to the letter with an absolute understanding as apparently most of you do.

As far as I am concerned, enough has been said on this subject that everyone on this board now knows the regulation and I am finished with it. Thanks to everyone that helped.

And thanks to everyone else for being so kind and understanding.

[Fox Xray]

Originally Posted by ghogue

Fox Xray,
I was the person who posted the link about the 250/10,000 beyond 12nm from shore. Actually it wasn't from an FAA procedures office, but an interpretation of the regs from the FAA Chief Counsel's office. I realize you are required to operate from the 7110.65, but that isn't regulation and a legal interpretation essentially is. This (the offshore thing) is not a big issue for me, but I believe everyone should be aware that they are responsible for complying with the regulations even if a controller clears them otherwise. To quote the 7110.65 for those who are not controllers,
"NOTE-
Pilots are required to abide by CFRs or other applicable regulations regardless of the application of any procedure or minima in this order."

The confusing part for most people I believe, is that not only does the 7110.65 allow for this type of operations beyond the 12nm limit, but so does the AIM and the Instrument Procedures Handbook. According to the letter, the statements in these manuals/Orders are under review and will be changed or the reg will be changed.

gary

I'm glad you posted ... I fwd a copy of that letter to someone I know in airspace and procedures. It was the first they have ever heard of anything on that. No one is aware of it... the wheels in the FAA move very slowly so that did not really surprise me. If / when I see a change to the .65 I'll post something on this board.

dc3flyer - don't sweat it. I'm not a pilot but stuff like this happens more often then you think. I see pilots make far worse errors then this.

[SteveC]

Originally Posted by Polarbear

Nothing wrong with holding people to a higher standard. The problem is in the way it is done.

When all you do is criticize and bash someone for a mistake instead of educating them, then you are creating additional problems and not fixing the original. Sometimes basic rules can be forgotten when either brand new to an area of operation or when you have so much experience you begin to slack. Does that mean that person should be crucified on the spot, no questions asked? What good does that do?

I am not sure how it is in the pilot ranks, but on the mtx side the philosophy of "Make a mistake? YOUR FIRED!!!" has been eliminated at most levels in favor of: Make a mistake? Own up to it (admit it), ask yourself how it happened, re-educate, get back to work.

From what I understand the change in philosophy with US airlines started about 10-15 years ago. In that time frame incidents resulting from mtx have dropped dramatically.

Which brings me to my last topic: have you ever made a mistake?

If your answer is no, then I bow to you since your the next messiah

That being said, what happens after you make that mistake? Do you usually make it again? 99.9% out there usually do not. They learn from it and that experience cures most incompetence.

Re-educate, then punish. It is a philosophy that works. If you suppress questions based on: "Since you asked a 'stupid' question you must be incompetent" then you create an atmosphere where the questions that really need to be asked never get asked and that is worse then letting the isolated incident go.

Now that being said.......If he makes the same mistake again or asks the same questions over and over.... Fry the sucker.

I close with this:

Who would you rather have fly the plane:

1. The guy who makes the mistake, doesn't realize it, doesn't ask the question, and possibly keeps doing it?

2. The the guy who made the mistake, realized he made it, owns up to it, asks the question, and probably won't make the same mistake?

[SteveC]

Originally Posted by dc3flyer

Again, where are there two different versions of the story? In my first post, I said nothing about "thought and discussed". I simply stated that we were level and still mainainting 300 knots. I (being wrong) assumed that since my captain maintained speed that we were fine. When querried by ATC, I (being commander of the radios on this leg) told ATC we were assigned 300 knots. I didn't mention anything in this post about my captain telling me he messed up because I wanted to hear how others thought, without any insight from me (or my captain for that matter).

In the second post (or story), I explained that my captain said we should have slowed down, he just for some reason didn't put two and two together, ie. we are below 10,000 forget about the speed you have bugged. AFTER ATC questioned us, is when something snapped and he realized we were too fast. I was still under the impression (before my captain said we weren't) that we were in the right.

My take on the situation is this: He messed up by not slowing down. Mistake #1 on his part. Not intentional. I messed up by not questioning him before ATC did it for me. Mistake #1 on my part. Also not intentional.

It is not that my captain blatently ignored a regulation. I did, however, have an incorrect knowledge of the regulation, as I believed that ATC could allow you or even request that you maintain a speed greater than 250. Come to find out only the Administrator can. A simple mistake could have been elimated, had I a better understanding. Now, I do. It seems to me that is the reason companies decide to put less experienced people in the right seat instead of the left, because we all still have something to learn. Not everyone knows every thing exactly to the letter with an absolute understanding as apparently most of you do.

As far as I am concerned, enough has been said on this subject that everyone on this board now knows the regulation and I am finished with it. Thanks to everyone that helped.

And thanks to everyone else for being so kind and understanding.

It was a good post and a valid question. I hope you, and others, will feel free to ask those same types of questions again in the future. Some times we get (or give!) lumps when they aren't deserved, but it is also important to remember that this is just the internet. If we'd all just try not to take things so personally, or be so quick to jump on a high horse (I'm guilty too!), it would be a whole lot smoother.

This is a good community of aviators and enthusiasts.

[moxiepilot]

dc3 -

what a thread.

thank you for posting your questing and I hope that you can wade through all the "holier than thou"ness in it to find an acceptable answer to your question.

i find it astounding that some of the posters have blown a valid question up into "you are so dumb and blatently dangerous" when with just a simple search query those same posters have had similar questions based on their mistakes.

To the bandwagon...chill out, you're not perfect, keep it civil.

I send out props to dc3 for keeping cool through the mudslinging.

$.02

[AngelFuree]

Originally Posted by moxiepilot

dc3 -

I send out props to dc3 for keeping cool through the mudslinging.

$.02

Definitely props to DC3 for keeping it cool.

Good question, lesson learned. I'd give my input, but a lot of good stuff has been said already.

Some of the attitudes in the responses are scarier than this incident itself. The attitude held by some people here almost makes others not want to ask questions and continue in "ignorance." Share the knowledge, don't talk condescendingly when you know you're human, too, and susceptible to mistakes. No one's perfect.

Good question.

[Stone Cold]

Very good post now that I've made ith through all of the hoopla. Now, to querry the ATC guys/gals...had an issue with Approach controllers in different areas. We were a lifeguard flight, going within 150 NM, and were passing through some very busy airspace (think Mickey Mouse). We filed for 10K, but the controllers had to keep us lower due to high volumes of traffic. Controller told us we were Lifeguard status, speed our discretion and the 250Kt. rule didn't apply to us. What is your interpretation on this, and was this a legal thing if we had sped up? How would the next Approach controller have dealt with us if we had been going faster that 250? Were they notified or would we have been answering a lot of questions?

Just curious...and for everybody's information we did not speed up. We had the medical team on board but no organs yet.

[Ophir]

Originally Posted by Chris_Ford

What type of aircraft was it then, chief? And pray tell, how many hours do you have CFIing or, even better, dropping meat missiles or taking pretty pictures of the ground...

Your captain ought to lose his ATP for such an egregious lack of BASIC PART NINETY ONE KNOWLEDGE. Seriously, the more I read this the more I feel absolutely ashamed of you.



What airline do you fly for? I will never put any of my family on their flights.

Would you shut up please. You are such an ass!

[Dugie8]

Originally Posted by dc3flyer

So the other day we were flying into an undisclosed airport. The Center controller advised us around FL240 (in a descent) to maintain 300 knots for spacing. He then proceeded to hand us off to another Center controller who handed us off to an Approach controller. By this time we were level at 8,000' and still maintaining 300 knots. After a few minutes, the Approach controller called us and said we were showing 320 knots across the ground and asked if we had a HUGE tailwind. I advised him we were "assigned" 300 knots and he couldn't believe it.

My question in: Should we have slowed down to 250 at 10,000' as normal, or should we have maintained 300 as we were asked?




Nothing else was said except "resume normal speed", so I am not worried about any actions, I just am new to the jet experience so this confused me a little.

Ok, story number one, the impression here is BOTH knew they were given a speed (300 knots) BOTH knew the rule about 10,000 and 250, BOTH chose to ignore the rule and fly faster than 250. This version does not paint the picture of making a mistake and forgetting to slow below 10, or even looking up and realizing being faster than 250 and slowing down, even with an ATC query this crew (BOTH OF THEM) thought it was perfectly acceptable to be at 300 knots at 8000 feet.

Originally Posted by dc3flyer

Who said I was in a CRJ or ERJ? Who said I was a 300 hour wonder? I probably have way more hours than you, just not in a jet. I know my captain probably has your time times 5.

I know I have heard ATC "allow" people to keep their speed up below 10,000 many times, as well as request that they do. I had just personally never been in the situation.



Loss of seperation???? Because I was going faster than the regulations allow? I don't think the regulations have ANYTHING to do with my aircarft limitations.

Originally Posted by dc3flyer

Thanks for admitting that we all make mistakes, some people seem to forget that...


It is not like I don't know the 250 knot reg, I was just under the same impression as Ian that ATC could "let" you go faster than the 250. I am a new FO on a corporate jet. My captain told me (after the fact) that he was a dumbass and that we should have slowed down. I just assumed (I know, bad deal) that since he is MUCH more experienced than me that it was okay. Next time something like this happens I will question him earlier since I am more edumacated.

I asked the question so I would know the answer as this is the first time I have been in the situation of being asked to keep a speed greater than 250 while in a descent to below 10,000. Most of my time is in twin piston aircraft that are not capable of doing that.

This is the confusing one, you "know" the rule about 10,000/250 but still think it is ok to go faster than 250 below 10,000 just because ATC asked you to??? Do you know the rule or not??

Originally Posted by dc3flyer

Okay guys, thanks for beating my head into the asphault. For the record, I have stated that I (me) am new to flying in a jet. I have less than 100 hours in any airplane that is capable of flying in excess of 250 knots. I know the under 250 below 10,000 rule. I didn't (did not) realize that ATC could not allow, or ask you to exceed that speed. It seems that there is also a regulation about altitudes east and west bound, yet ATC often clears me to an odd altitude momentarily when I am flying westbound. Does my accepting that clearnence make me just as ignorant as this?

I know it is one of my responsibilities as the co-pilot to assure the captain doesn't make mistakes. That is why there are two of us. When he didn't slow at 10,000, I assumed (yes, made an ass of me) that since we had been assigned a greater speed, that we were expected to maintain it. It is not a structural issue for this plane, so all is fine with the airplane. When qeustioned about it by ATC, the first words out of the captain's mouth were, "Oh shot, we're at 8,000!" He was obviously not thinking about it for whatever reason. Once on the ground, I asked him about when we should reduce our speed in this situation and he said we should have slowed down at 10,000 as normal regardless of previous requests from ATC. He knew it, and just f'ed up.

I was asked and asked often about speeds and speed restrictions during my training. I am just now at the point of putting that rote knowledge to practical work. At NO POINT in my training, did anyone ever aske me, "Well, when can you exceed 200 within 4 nm at or below 2500' in a Class C or D? When can you exceed 250 below 10,000'?" Until today, I thought the answer to both of those questions was with ATC approval. Obviously, I was wrong. Evidentally at least one more person was too, because Ian posted the regulation and thought that ATC could approve it. We have both been corrected.

I appreciate the knowledge of my captain (him telling me afterward, after he messed up, that we should have slowed) but I know there is an abundance of knowledge here, so I posted the question. I appreciate the "corrective action" I have recieved for it, as well as exactly what I was looking for... somewhere that expounds on the regulation as we read it in Part 91 (The controller response from Omdahl).

Now I know the answer to my question so I can assure it doesn't happen again and maybe more people may have learned from my mistake, error, ignorance, or complete disregard for regulations, whatever you want to call it.

Now here is where your story changes from "We kept the speed up" to "Oh shoot, we are too fast below 10,000" Which is it? If it is the latter, hey I've done that, we all have, that is a mistake. If it is the former, guess what, hey dumbass WTF.

[calcapt]

It's all been said, and then some......

[Fox Xray]

Originally Posted by Stone Cold

Now, to querry the ATC guys/gals...had an issue with Approach controllers in different areas. We were a lifeguard flight, going within 150 NM, and were passing through some very busy airspace (think Mickey Mouse). We filed for 10K, but the controllers had to keep us lower due to high volumes of traffic. Controller told us we were Lifeguard status, speed our discretion and the 250Kt. rule didn't apply to us. What is your interpretation on this, and was this a legal thing if we had sped up? How would the next Approach controller have dealt with us if we had been going faster that 250? Were they notified or would we have been answering a lot of questions?

Just curious...and for everybody's information we did not speed up. We had the medical team on board but no organs yet.

In the instance I would say you probably would have been safe from being violated. Technically ATC cannot clear you above 250 kts below 10K ... in the situation you describe the controller had to descend you for traffic but didn't want to penalize you due to your lifeguard status, hence the clearance. If you were questioned the voice tapes would be proof that you were cleared speed your discretion. Being a lifeguard I would doubt you would have been questioned. Though it is not mandatory we tend to do all we can for a lifeguard flight.

[Stone Cold]

Originally Posted by Fox Xray

In the instance I would say you probably would have been safe from being violated. Technically ATC cannot clear you above 250 kts below 10K ... in the situation you describe the controller had to descend you for traffic but didn't want to penalize you due to your lifeguard status, hence the clearance. If you were questioned the voice tapes would be proof that you were cleared speed your discretion. Being a lifeguard I would doubt you would have been questioned. Though it is not mandatory we tend to do all we can for a lifeguard flight.

Understood, and thanks for the info. Would the local approach guy have let the next areas local approach guy know he "allowed" us to do this? Like I said, we had the medical team on board, so we were officially lifeguard status, but no organ, so we didn't feel we needed to take the chance.

If the organ had been on board, then it would have been a different story...

And we do appreciate all that you are able to do for us when in that status. I wish we could give you some of the info on what we're transporting and let you guys know how much you've helped in the process. Needless to say, it is appreciated!!

[Fox Xray]

Most likely the controller told the next sector... it's just a matter of hitting the land line and stating LN12345 is direct XYZ speed his discretion.

As for helping a lifeguard flight it's the right thing to do. These flights are helping people out and the least I can do is get them to their destination ASAP. The pilots that fly these flights are doing a really good thing... you guys deserve the accolades.

[SteveC]

I wanted to wait until Stone Cold got his questions answered before I shut this thread. "What's with all the negative waves, Moriarty?"