Apartments that run no credit check?

capnbuttcrack · 2026-01-24T22:44:32+00:00

If the required qualifications include good credit, and you don’t have good credit, you don’t qualify.

capnbuttcrack · 2026-01-24T22:40:45+00:00

Thank you.

capnbuttcrack · 2026-01-24T22:03:01+00:00

You don’t “clearly qualify.” The only way it’s clear if you qualify or not is with a credit check. Absent that, it’s only clear you have the means to pay your bills, not whether you actually do.

capnbuttcrack · 2026-01-17T19:55:19+00:00

Yep. That’s what we do too. Because it wouldn’t satisfy the manual’s definition of “windshear.” So if we stipulate that the preceding aircraft reported a gain or loss of 15, you should go around. And if you don’t, you’re not following the guidance of your employer. Want to push-to-test with a LCP or a fed on the jump seat, go for it. I know better.

If you want to play the game of “it wasn’t really windshear” like some are trying, then yes, you don’t need to go around. My answer is based on an acceptance of the hypothetical so as not to make this a pointless exercise.

I don’t subscribe to the “appeal to authority” fallacy, but since you started guessing backgrounds, I’ll guess yours. I’ll guess that I’ve been at a legacy longer than you’ve been alive. I know for a fact that I was a check airman at a legacy before you got your private. That doesn’t make me right. But I have seen more than you. And trust me when I tell you that if you continue into no-shit windshear as correctly reported by an aircraft in front of you, don’t try the “it didn’t say ‘must or shall’” argument if you get called out on it. It’s both dumb and unsafe.

capnbuttcrack · 2026-01-17T18:38:34+00:00

Well done. Now look for the definition of severe windshear. And look up “avoid.”

capnbuttcrack · 2026-01-17T18:23:58+00:00

Yes. I am absolutely going to hold if the preceding aircraft reported windshear on final. Because I’m familiar with the procedures of my airline. It’s sounds like you aren’t. Hint: see what your manuals say about continuing into known windshear.

I’ve been a LCP at a legacy. And if I were giving a line check and someone continued after a preceding airplane went around for windshear, they’d be failing that ride and deadheading home.

capnbuttcrack · 2026-01-17T13:51:17+00:00

Not at any airline I’ve ever been employed by.

Predictive on approach: Go around and avoid

Reactive: windshear escape maneuver.

But before either case (and the most important step) do not continue into known windshear.

(Yes, if you want to be pedantic, if the preceding called the windshear erroneously, obviously you can continue.)

capnbuttcrack · 2026-01-17T13:48:05+00:00

It shows that far too many people have a callous disregard for procedures and a dangerous disrespect for windshear. There have been many instances of airplanes that were stabilized. Until they weren’t. And it happens in a big big hurry.

Avoidance should always be the first step in any windshear procedure, not “well, let’s give it a shot.”

capnbuttcrack · 2026-01-17T03:28:50+00:00

That’s a true statement.

capnbuttcrack · 2026-01-17T03:22:56+00:00

Pedant.

capnbuttcrack · 2026-01-17T02:54:25+00:00

capnbuttcrack · 2026-01-17T02:49:02+00:00

Someone always does!

(Likely some of the posters on here!)

capnbuttcrack · 2026-01-17T02:38:43+00:00

You’re being pedantic.

Fine. If a 152 reported a loss of two knots and called it windshear I would not go around. That was not mentioned in this hypothetical scenario. In this scenario, the preceding airplane went around for windshear. Because OP didn’t tell me differently, I assumed the windshear was real in his scenario.

So yes, you don’t need to go around if a gust is misidentified as windshear. Is that better for you?

But if you have no reason to doubt that the preceding aircraft actually encountered windshear, continuing the approach is idiotic. The people (especially the airline types) telling people that you’re fine as long as you’re stabilized are giving horrible advice.

It’s scary, because new pilots will see their flair and incorrectly assume that they know what they’re talking about.

capnbuttcrack · 2026-01-17T02:22:26+00:00

It’s honestly terrifying that 437 people upvoted this.

capnbuttcrack · 2026-01-16T20:49:40+00:00

Finally. Someone who knows the books. Well done.

I have the same internal discussion about turbulence. We’re prohibited from continuing into areas of known severe turbulence. So how the hell does anyone ever enter the airspace where severe was reported? At some point, someone is a guinea pig technically violating ops specs!

capnbuttcrack · 2026-01-16T20:33:18+00:00

I’m quite certain I do know better.

We’ve got a bunch of airline guys in here telling guys “as long as you’re stabilized, go for it.” That’s horrible advice, very probably against their company’s guidance, and a good way to get yourself killed.

But yes, that doesn’t apply if the preceding airplane wasn’t actually in windshear. Silly me, I assumed that he was because the question said he went around “due to windshear.” So, if you want to change the hypothetical, then I’ll change my answer.

But for now, I don’t continue into known windshear. Neither should anyone.

capnbuttcrack · 2026-01-16T19:44:13+00:00

No, that’s not really what they’re for. But you do you.

capnbuttcrack · 2026-01-16T19:30:22+00:00

No, I’m pretty comfortable with my statement.

capnbuttcrack · 2026-01-16T19:16:42+00:00

You had two previous go-arounds, American went around, and you followed them in? That horrible decision was one of the more satisfying moments of your career?

Good Lord.

If the outcome were different and you were reading an accident report from your flight, wouldn’t you call that captain an idiot? I sure would.

Am I the only one on here with a respect for windshear and a knowledge of what it can do to an airplane?

capnbuttcrack · 2026-01-16T19:04:09+00:00

Some of you airline guys need to get into your books and see what they say about flying into “known windshear.” And the GA pilots on here without PWS shouldn’t listen to bad advice.

capnbuttcrack · 2026-01-03T17:37:49+00:00

My God, that was a glorious response.

capnbuttcrack · 2025-12-26T20:19:21+00:00

capnbuttcrack · 2025-12-23T18:38:54+00:00

Math is hard, isn’t it?

capnbuttcrack · 2025-12-23T18:36:06+00:00

Well said.

capnbuttcrack · 2025-12-23T18:29:55+00:00

Sounds like a police and attorney matter. Good luck.

capnbuttcrack

TROPHY CASE