JeremiahWeed

I don’t understand what is being correlated to drinking/smoking.

If you make it through and get your wings, I’d say there’s a better than average chance you get a callsign as a result. Probably not a good one. 😂 Free advice. There’s almost zero upside to putting your personal shit out for public consumption. A picture, opinion, video, look what I did, listen to what I know, etc. the cons far outweigh the pros. Think about applying for a future airline job or maybe a Guard unit and having them read a questionable Facebook post or play your podcast and then ask for an explanation. Your older, wiser self will thank you if you just STFU and live your life. You’ll mess up enough in private or within your normal circle. No need to expand the list of people who you might have to explain extra shit to sometime in the future.

WTF? The effing airplane is upside down, sliding down the runway, on fire at one point and idiots have their damn phones out while they’re trying to evacuate. YGBSM!

Ok, fair enough. I’ve always heard it with the other word, but I stand corrected.

Just a minor point. I believe the word we’re all looking for is actually “deviation”, not deviance. Deviance is a word with its roots in the word Deviant. Deviant behavior is any behavior that does not conform to societal norms.There are many different types of deviant behavior, including impoliteness, violence, and substance abuse. These behaviors may or may not be criminal.

Ok. If we have the same FOM reject criteria, then aside from the ambiguous "unable or unsafe to fly", then we're on the same page. I guess I feel like the industry statistics leading to us going into the air versus accepting a high speed reject are valid. In the high speed reject regime up to airborne, I can deal with the typical engine, oil, bleed air, hyd, etc. that might manifest during takeoff by 1) avoiding the risk of a high speed reject by not doing that and 2) mitigating the same issue with a lower speed, longer runway, lighter weight landing solution after takeoff and after checklist completion.

Sorry - Had to go fly. Good discussion and I had some time to consider my response at cruise. It's been over 20 years since I flew the 737 or A320 and I've rammed dumped them. My more recent experience is on the MD-11, 777, 757 and I'm currently in the left seat of the 767. First, I can already see we're coming at this from very different directions due to the lack of inhibits in your aircraft. I'd be curious to hear from other 737 operators. I'm really surprised that some of the newer versions don't have that feature. So, from my perspective, the inhibits allow me to ignore the failures that have already been determined to be unworthy of a high speed reject. All I need to know are the ones for which I am going to high speed reject. The other ones I'm not going to know about (or can be ignored) until 400' on takeoff. My company FOM directs a reject in the high speed regime for 4 things: Fire or Fire Warning, Engine Failure, Any type of windshear alert or warning and if the aircraft is unsafe or unable to fly. That's it. So I have thought about what I'm going to abort for and it's those items. Since other possible failures are filtered from my decision process by the inhibits, I don't have to look for all possible cockpit indications of problems and then determine if those are in my pre-thought-out list of high speed rejectable events and then decide to reject. Barring some kind of runway excusion or other external event, If I don't see one of the 4 things I listed above between 80 knots and V1, then I'm going flying. Some things I'm probably going to eventually declare an E for that might occur on takeoff (speaking now for the 767): Most of the ones that the QRH directs a land at nearest suitable and some that don't. Loss of generator or IDG with a deferred (MELed) APU in the Wx (so only one primary AC source), dual engine fuel filter issues, Anti-skid failure/fault, any single hyd failure since they all come with reduced spoiler panels operating on each wing (potential stopping issues) while in addition, the center system failure requires a higher landing speed and reduced landing flap setting using the alternate flap system, alternate gear extension and use of reserve brakes. I'm not trying to start a secondary "when to declare" thread. I realize there are lots of opinions. Mine is declaring an E doesn't cost anything other than some extra paperwork and if I'm going to be dealing with possible stopping issues, dual engine issues or one more failure putting me on battery power in the wx then I want priority and equipment standing by. Here are some examples of when inhibits occur during takeoff (FYI, there are also landing inhibits): MD-11 - Warnings for some fires from V1 to 400' RA or 25 seconds airborne. Lower priority cautions/alerts and the associated MC lights inhibited at either throttle advance, 80 knots or V1-20 until 400'/25 seconds airborne (some even inhibited until 1000' or 120 seconds airborne). A couple of exceptions are Engine fire is not inhibited at V1 but the master warning light/aurals from it are until 400' and the tire failure isn't inhibited. 777 - All EICAS advisory messages and MC light w/ new EICAS caution level messages inhibited from 80 knots to 400'/20 seconds airborne, Master warning lights/fire bell from the first of V1 or rotation to 400'/25 seconds airborne 767 - Advisory messages inhibited from t/o thrust application to 400'/20 seconds airborne, MC lights and EICAS caution aurals from 80 knots to 400'/20 seconds after rotation (actual EICAS cautions not inhibited - just the sound), Master Warning lights/fire bells from rotation to 400' or 20 seconds elapsed. A fire during inhibit will show an EICAS warning but no aurals until inhibit ends. I agree with your "time is the enemy" comments to a degree. But in some cases it depends on the aircraft. None of the bleed air malfunctions in the 767 require land at nearest suitable. All fuel related EICAS messages with the exception of L/R system pressure are advisory and I'll never even see them in the high speed regime. So, to a large majority of today's pilots, many of those malfunctions you mention are not going to be evident or if they are, only a partial, inaudible caution during the critical time between 80 knots and V1. That obviously excludes you and others flying 737s that don't inhibit cautions and advisories. On my flight today with a medium TOW (322K out of 408K max), I had 18 seconds from 80 knots to V1. I was PF. Bleed, fuel, oil and hyd leaks or a bad generator were probably not going to manifest themselves in such a way that they would have been recognized in the early half of that 18 seconds for the FO to let me know in time. No aurals and no MC lights while I'm looking outside through the HUD with a "go" mentality listening for only what I know can audibly warn me about 3 out of the 4 reasons I'm trained to reject at high speed. We're simply not conditioned and trained to bring a silent EICAS message into the decision process between 80 knots and V1. Yes, the non-rotating aircraft is an outlier. I wasn't using it as an example of a high speed reject, but more to offer an example of an aircraft that is unsafe or isn't going to fly. But, not really adding much to the discussion, I agree.

I agree with you that the 80 knot airspeed call is not just a notification that we're transitioning into the high speed regime but also a cross-check and a great time to catch an an unreliable airspeed situation while still on the ground. If we catch it in time, I would definitely reject for that and accept that I'm entering the early stage of high speed but hardly bumping right up against V1. To your other point, there is at least one scenario I can think of that will result in declaring an emergency after takeoff that doesn't warrant the risk of a high speed reject above 80 knots. Tire failure. It's definitely not recommended to reject at high speed with limited runway left and reduced stopping ability for that when it would be far safer to takeoff, reduce weight and use the entirety of a long runway to safely get the aircraft stopped. But, you'll definitely be declaring an emergency when you come back to land. MD-11s have an aural warning for that malfunction. Maybe other MD products do as well. I'm not aware of that warning in any Boeing or Airbus aircraft I've flown but maybe it's an option to buy. So without that warning, it's possible pilots may not be completely aware of what they have with a blown tire if they're going fast enough and almost ready to rotate. Depending on audible cues, they might know they have "something" but maybe not exactly what. That's why it's important to know exactly what you are going to high speed reject for and if it's not one of those then you keep going. Using a nebulous list of "things I'll eventually have to declare an E for" is really not a good idea, IMO. Most aircraft inhibit low level alerts and associated master cautions during takeoff roll for that very reason. So, it's very likely you'll be taking some emergencies into the air and might not be aware of them until you are airborne and the inhibit is lifted. Just my .02 It's also worthy of note that pilots of smaller aircraft might be able to get away with rejects outside of the normally acceptable region. But it's unlikely that the FAA or operators are going to publish different guidelines for a mid-weight 737 and a 1-million lb. 747-800. However, on a 12K' runway, I'd say the pilots in each of those aircraft have completely different decisions to make regarding a high speed reject for "something that requires an emergency" after takeoff. The "aircraft is unable or unsafe to fly" is a tough call and definitely hard to define. We don't use "fear of...." in our FOM. 😊 Here's one example: https://asn.flightsafety.org/asndb/319913

I don't buy it. We've been pulling Gs for a long damn time. High sustained single digit Gs since the 4th gen fighters took over in the 80's. If the focus in on the Navy, I would look at the take-off and landing phase. Not going out in a swirl pulling Gs. If you have to endure the equivalent of a mid-strength car accident every time you launch from and land on a carrier, that's the first place to look if there's some smoke in this at all. The other counter is, the Navy has been taking off and landing from carriers for a pretty long time too. Maybe it's just a case of the occasional outlier who can't tolerate the unique stresses most others can in a line of work that isn't known for slack.

o Awww, you got me.

IMO, in many cases it's those "couple thousand hours" that actually become the problem for those "airline guys". Once a pilot has that many hours flying in an environment considerably different and coming at them more slowly (in terms of general airspeed and timing of flight events), many are going to struggle to ramp back up to T-38 speeds. Their mental clock has been set and it can be more difficult to change that. Contrast that with the zero (or very low hour) UPT student who really doesn't know any better. They just do what they're told (like Forest Gump field stripping his weapon in record time - "Because you told me to Drill Sergeant"). We had a 3000 hour commuter pilot in my class who barely made it through the -38 phase and ended up lucky to get a -130. Meanwhile fungos like me with 25 hours in a cessna to start are killing it in the -38 and heading to the Eagle. There were a lot more of us low time guys who had no issues than high time guys doing the same. Something to be said for learning it the AF way from the start. I think the transition from GA to 300 kts in a T-7 (or -38) isn't that big a deal as long as that student is kind of a clean slate and not tainted with a bunch of "experience" that's not really going to help in the long run.

Are we sure this wasn't a tongue in cheek facetious comment by the LtCol taken the wrong way? "Sounds like a pretty big problem Airman, you better forward that to the CoS".

Agree with most of that. I hope it's complacency and oversight and not something far more sinister. But the armored banner is an immediate shelter. Speed to the exit vehicle isn't the primary goal. A coordinated exit with at least some confirmation the shooter (or shooters) are not still actively spraying bullets is a far better option than dragging your protectee through a hail of projectiles. They get the SS response team (the ones on the stage in tac gear) in place to cover the exit, make sure the detail is ready to move and then go. Wildly dragging the primary off the stage might save a few seconds but probably not the best option. The fist in the air is gonna get him the Oval Office again, so it was a great move. Just awesome.

The same people who made UFO went on to make Space: 1999. They do look pretty similar generally speaking. BTW, they also made the marionette series The Thunderbirds in the 60's. Talk about some seriously intricate modeling. Same kind of marionettes used in the Team America movie.

Always need to send some love and mucho respect to my rotary wing bros. But, I can't imagine making my living doing that. I had two rides in a helo. CH-53 to a carrier and back. Felt absolutely wrong. I shouldn't have been that high up with that little forward airspeed and not screaming like a girl. I'm glad someone wants to do that and if I was ever gonna be on one it was because they came to get me, under fire, risking their asses and I would have been far happier to be on that bucket of bolts getting out of Dodge than I would have been getting captured by the other side. Here's to you boys. 🍻