Recent content by OverTQ

The weight you can take off with on a given runway changes day by day with weather. On both ends. We might have plenty of weight allowance on takeoff, but are near the max we can land with on the destination end. Further, carryons are included in passenger average weights but the quantity of...

Depends on the airline and what their Op Specs allow, but yes, that’s something that can be legal to do. Approval to do so will have conditions attached to it, for instance: The flightcrew is in direct communication with an air/ground communication facility or agent of the certificate holder...

That's a fair critique, as is critiquing the way they operated (sans LHFE, with private pilots effectively acting as instructors, etc). But my point is that most of what Gryder had to say about the operation, including characterizing it as NOE flights for financial gain, is false.

That's what I'm saying. Those aren't the wires they hit. Dan Gryder doesn't know what he's talking about. Whenever there's an accident, he obtains a patchwork of information, makes a bunch of wild assumptions and assertions, play a song, and wraps it all up into a self-promoting video. As far...

Dan Gryder has gotten almost everything wrong in this video, to include but not limited to: They weren't flying NOE. He misidentified the wires they hit. He characterized it as a profit making endeavor, which it most certainly wasn't. (They almost certainly operated at a loss in order to host...

Correct, not an LHFE operation.

Perhaps I'm reading it wrong, but that seems like a rude response to someone that offered to take time out of their day to share their experience for your benefit. Here's a resource you might find useful. https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/piedmont-airlines/ You're also still welcome to PM me...

Plenty of reasons are available online at other forums. You can also PM me if you like.

I would strongly consider other options than Piedmont.

Then you haven't read this thread. I've quoted, twice, directly from an AC that says straight-in approaches should be executed in a way that doesn't interfere with traffic in the pattern. Like 100 pixels above your reply I quoted an NTSB opinion that states that straight-ins are acceptable if...

Say it all you want, but the peoples' whose opinions matter don't agree with you.

The bottom line is that the judgement you've been referencing is irrelevant. It only seems to place importance on traffic that is on final. If you still harbor the view that straight-in traffic has the right-of-way by default, you should look at the CFR, where there is no such regulation. The...

Read it again. His claim was that straight-in approaches weren't legal, and because they were not legal, he didn't need to yield to someone that wasn't conducting a legal pattern entry. They rejected his excuse, and they explain why, but nowhere do they say the rejection was because...

Here are the reasons given for the revocation: I've yet to find something that says the straight-in pattern entry was relevant.

Nobody is ignoring that. We're simply pointing out that the pattern entry method seems to be irrelevant. The consistent factor is that he cut them off on final, as was stated in the letter. Some of those aircraft had flown the pattern and then were cut-off on final, some flew straight-in and...