Welcome to Flightinfo.com
- Register now and join the discussion
- Friendliest aviation Ccmmunity on the web
- Modern site for PC's, Phones, Tablets - no 3rd party apps required
- Ask questions, help others, promote aviation
- Share the passion for aviation
- Invite everyone to Flightinfo.com and let's have fun
Airlines Vs Fractional
- Thread starter rajflyboy
- Start date
- Watchers 21
Welcome to Flightinfo.com
- Register now and join the discussion
- Modern secure site, no 3rd party apps required
- Invite your friends
- Share the passion of aviation
- Friendliest aviation community on the web
May have once been the case.
Back in the days (and for the few lucky guys that still get to do it) when the pilots had to nurse four belching, tempramental, monsters of radials down an NDB approach at night to mins with true steam guages and a lot of muscle, THEN a2b probably had it right. The bigger they were, the more actual skill it took to fly-em.
Today however with the level of automation available on the modern airliners and the amount of practice that you can get on even the most improbable scenarios in the sim it can hardly be said to still be the situation that bigger means it takes more skill.
Back in the days (and for the few lucky guys that still get to do it) when the pilots had to nurse four belching, tempramental, monsters of radials down an NDB approach at night to mins with true steam guages and a lot of muscle, THEN a2b probably had it right. The bigger they were, the more actual skill it took to fly-em.
Today however with the level of automation available on the modern airliners and the amount of practice that you can get on even the most improbable scenarios in the sim it can hardly be said to still be the situation that bigger means it takes more skill.
KeroseneSnorter
Robust Member
- Joined
- Oct 26, 2003
- Posts
- 1,530
RAJ and Aspiring,
I would have to say that you two "Studs" would do much better to keep your ignorant opinions to yourself. You are an embarrasment to the profession. If you think that a rat jet flying under 121, with primus or proline full efis, and an FMS is more demanding than anything else out there, you guys need to actually go somewhere and learn to fly.....cause you haven't figured it out yet.
Does an RJ have complex systems...yes,Just like any transport catagory airplane) is it hard to fly or require "Stud" skill.....Good lord NO!!!! Somebody couldn't jump out of a 172 and strap one on but ANYBODY with corporate jet time could fly it!! **CENSORED****CENSORED****CENSORED****CENSORED** boys, just what do you think a CRJ is????? It is a stretched Challenger corporate jet!!!!!!!!! An ERJ is a Brazilia with blowers and a swept wing!!!
Heres a quiz, I am Typed in 2 turboprops (121) 3 jets (121 and Corporate 91, Including the 737(f/o) and your beloved RJ) and have 1000 hours in a ragged out 58 Baron flying checks part 135. Which one do you suppose I look back at as being the toughest job I ever had? Hint: It ain't the ones that burned Kerosene.
I bet you guys used to tell underclassmen at your flight school how tough that big ole 182Rg or Seminole was too!!!!!!
I would have to say that you two "Studs" would do much better to keep your ignorant opinions to yourself. You are an embarrasment to the profession. If you think that a rat jet flying under 121, with primus or proline full efis, and an FMS is more demanding than anything else out there, you guys need to actually go somewhere and learn to fly.....cause you haven't figured it out yet.
Does an RJ have complex systems...yes,Just like any transport catagory airplane) is it hard to fly or require "Stud" skill.....Good lord NO!!!! Somebody couldn't jump out of a 172 and strap one on but ANYBODY with corporate jet time could fly it!! **CENSORED****CENSORED****CENSORED****CENSORED** boys, just what do you think a CRJ is????? It is a stretched Challenger corporate jet!!!!!!!!! An ERJ is a Brazilia with blowers and a swept wing!!!
Heres a quiz, I am Typed in 2 turboprops (121) 3 jets (121 and Corporate 91, Including the 737(f/o) and your beloved RJ) and have 1000 hours in a ragged out 58 Baron flying checks part 135. Which one do you suppose I look back at as being the toughest job I ever had? Hint: It ain't the ones that burned Kerosene.
I bet you guys used to tell underclassmen at your flight school how tough that big ole 182Rg or Seminole was too!!!!!!
flyfish
Well-known member
- Joined
- Feb 25, 2003
- Posts
- 78
It's the mission not the aircraft that makes one more challenging than the other. Scheduled 121, which I have done, is primarily vectors to ILS after ILS to familiar 6000+ foot runways. In fractional flying, and other 91, you might start in Anchorage and end up in the Carribean stopping at ASE, and ATL on the way.
Major airports, mountain airports, uncontrolled airports all in a days work. You never know what's next. You are always being challenged. Just not the case with 121.
But if you still want to compare aircraft, I agree the twin recip. is the harder to fly than most any jet.
Major airports, mountain airports, uncontrolled airports all in a days work. You never know what's next. You are always being challenged. Just not the case with 121.
But if you still want to compare aircraft, I agree the twin recip. is the harder to fly than most any jet.
Aspiring to be
Well-known member
- Joined
- Nov 13, 2002
- Posts
- 95
I knew I would catch some flack on my original post. My main purpose was to expose the BS of Catyaak when he said
“(" Deplaning, I queried the crew as to what the problem was....wx?..mech?. "No problem whatsoever" they said, and went on to explain to me that with so many pax the safest thing to do was to not fly at all.").
I do not believe there could be any truth to that statement.
I never said that an RJ was more difficult for a 121 than it would be for a 91 or 135. I would also agree that 121 with the repetition of destinations would be easier. What I do believe and I have a great deal of time in all types is that the bigger airplanes as a rule are more difficult to fly. I say this for many reasons but I guess power to weight ratio is one of the main reason. You can do things due to the higher power to weight ratio with the business jets than you can with the bigger ones. Your planning does not have to be as good for the descent, landing, etc due to this. Try a wind shear in say a Hawker XP and then do the same thing with the same conditions way with the 747, DC-10, L-1011 etc. The response, reaction in the small jets in all axes is much greater than the larger aircraft. The physical part of flying is easier with the smaller jets. A V1 cut is easier in the small jets. The descent planning is more important in the larger jets. The smaller jets are much more forgiving than the larger ones. The larger jets are as a norm flown much closer to limits than are the smaller cousins. A small jet is much like a fast sports car. Drive a sports car through the mountains and then try the same thing in a large tractor-trailer. Put aileron correction into say an L-1011 and wait for the corrective action to start as opposed to the immediate response with say the Hawker. Yes, I know about Telluride, etc but the average business jet is not near any limits other than maybe max take-off weight. Most of the airports are much longer than needed. Yes, some of the newer aircraft have some good power to weight ratios. The 757 is a great airplane for power but even then, it takes more planning. I never said that anyone could not do it I did say the skill level is higher for the larger aircraft. I believe what Mobie is really referring to, from looking at his qualification, is that he does not have the help with wx, flight planning, fuel burn, etc. that he had with USAirways. He is with his flight time retired from airline flying, I know many people in the same boat, and many have trouble coming down to 91-type flying. My qualifications would match that of Mobie's and I believe that 90% of similar experience pilots would agree with me. The small jets are not toys yet I feel like I am in one while I am flying them. I know that they are easier to fly, control, etc and that is not saying that you do not but… Part 91 and 135 flying requires greater skill in flight planning, etc than does the 121 flying. How many times have I seen pilot’s select fuel loads that are much greater than required because it took no planning? Many. The airlines tend to cut it closer as carrying extra fuel cost money. Yes, I know about tankering. It is true that most if not all airlines are not allowed to do circling approaches unless the wx is 1000/3. The reason is because the airports that are operated into have some type of approach at the other end and if approved for circling then you must do one every check ride. Airlines do operate into some airports where special training, etc is required. What type of special training did you receive prior to go to Telluride and other similar type of airports? I can tell you that I received no training no nothing, which I believe, is the norm with the smaller business jets.
I will say again that I do not believe that it is the number of people on board that determines how we would fly. I believe the difference between three and three hundred is zero as to how we should fly. With larger passenger loads certain areas of responsibility does increase. Having a crew of 17 has more responsibility (troublesome) than three do. Having 200, 300 or 400 passengers’ causes more concern, more chances for problems than would 10.
Most of the passengers on business jets are frequent, experience flyers, and are really easier to deal with. I find when there is a weather problem etc and it is explained to the passenger it is much better understood and appreciated by the business jet passenger. Fly PIC on the big jets and then tell me I am wrong. Most of the post I read that are anti 121 are from those that have never flown 121 or if they did then it was at one of the commuters or where they had very limited routes. I enjoy flying the smaller jets and at times not having a schedule, going to different places, etc. I am not trying to say one type of flying is better, that is for each to decide. I will say that the larger aircraft require more skill and experience to fly them. I do believe the responsibility increases, the skill level increases with the increase in size, complexity, passangers, etc that you find with the larger aircraft. I do not have knowledge of all small jets but the one that is most similar to a larger aircraft is that of the Gulfstream and that is comparable to the DC-9 in system and complexity of systems. I do not mean to offend or belittle those that fly the small jets. I understand the love of flying them.
“(" Deplaning, I queried the crew as to what the problem was....wx?..mech?. "No problem whatsoever" they said, and went on to explain to me that with so many pax the safest thing to do was to not fly at all.").
I do not believe there could be any truth to that statement.
I never said that an RJ was more difficult for a 121 than it would be for a 91 or 135. I would also agree that 121 with the repetition of destinations would be easier. What I do believe and I have a great deal of time in all types is that the bigger airplanes as a rule are more difficult to fly. I say this for many reasons but I guess power to weight ratio is one of the main reason. You can do things due to the higher power to weight ratio with the business jets than you can with the bigger ones. Your planning does not have to be as good for the descent, landing, etc due to this. Try a wind shear in say a Hawker XP and then do the same thing with the same conditions way with the 747, DC-10, L-1011 etc. The response, reaction in the small jets in all axes is much greater than the larger aircraft. The physical part of flying is easier with the smaller jets. A V1 cut is easier in the small jets. The descent planning is more important in the larger jets. The smaller jets are much more forgiving than the larger ones. The larger jets are as a norm flown much closer to limits than are the smaller cousins. A small jet is much like a fast sports car. Drive a sports car through the mountains and then try the same thing in a large tractor-trailer. Put aileron correction into say an L-1011 and wait for the corrective action to start as opposed to the immediate response with say the Hawker. Yes, I know about Telluride, etc but the average business jet is not near any limits other than maybe max take-off weight. Most of the airports are much longer than needed. Yes, some of the newer aircraft have some good power to weight ratios. The 757 is a great airplane for power but even then, it takes more planning. I never said that anyone could not do it I did say the skill level is higher for the larger aircraft. I believe what Mobie is really referring to, from looking at his qualification, is that he does not have the help with wx, flight planning, fuel burn, etc. that he had with USAirways. He is with his flight time retired from airline flying, I know many people in the same boat, and many have trouble coming down to 91-type flying. My qualifications would match that of Mobie's and I believe that 90% of similar experience pilots would agree with me. The small jets are not toys yet I feel like I am in one while I am flying them. I know that they are easier to fly, control, etc and that is not saying that you do not but… Part 91 and 135 flying requires greater skill in flight planning, etc than does the 121 flying. How many times have I seen pilot’s select fuel loads that are much greater than required because it took no planning? Many. The airlines tend to cut it closer as carrying extra fuel cost money. Yes, I know about tankering. It is true that most if not all airlines are not allowed to do circling approaches unless the wx is 1000/3. The reason is because the airports that are operated into have some type of approach at the other end and if approved for circling then you must do one every check ride. Airlines do operate into some airports where special training, etc is required. What type of special training did you receive prior to go to Telluride and other similar type of airports? I can tell you that I received no training no nothing, which I believe, is the norm with the smaller business jets.
I will say again that I do not believe that it is the number of people on board that determines how we would fly. I believe the difference between three and three hundred is zero as to how we should fly. With larger passenger loads certain areas of responsibility does increase. Having a crew of 17 has more responsibility (troublesome) than three do. Having 200, 300 or 400 passengers’ causes more concern, more chances for problems than would 10.
Most of the passengers on business jets are frequent, experience flyers, and are really easier to deal with. I find when there is a weather problem etc and it is explained to the passenger it is much better understood and appreciated by the business jet passenger. Fly PIC on the big jets and then tell me I am wrong. Most of the post I read that are anti 121 are from those that have never flown 121 or if they did then it was at one of the commuters or where they had very limited routes. I enjoy flying the smaller jets and at times not having a schedule, going to different places, etc. I am not trying to say one type of flying is better, that is for each to decide. I will say that the larger aircraft require more skill and experience to fly them. I do believe the responsibility increases, the skill level increases with the increase in size, complexity, passangers, etc that you find with the larger aircraft. I do not have knowledge of all small jets but the one that is most similar to a larger aircraft is that of the Gulfstream and that is comparable to the DC-9 in system and complexity of systems. I do not mean to offend or belittle those that fly the small jets. I understand the love of flying them.
A2B
Besides your making everyone wonder if you have actually flown any of the aircraft you are talking about outside of Microsoft Flight simulator, you are also truly demonstrating your complete lack of any sense of humor. You are replying to a joke post that was in reply to another joke post as if complete serious, making you look even more like a fool than you already do. I bet people you know hate it when they have to explain all the punch lines to you.
Besides your making everyone wonder if you have actually flown any of the aircraft you are talking about outside of Microsoft Flight simulator, you are also truly demonstrating your complete lack of any sense of humor. You are replying to a joke post that was in reply to another joke post as if complete serious, making you look even more like a fool than you already do. I bet people you know hate it when they have to explain all the punch lines to you.
Aspiring to be said:
What do the airline pilots know about dealing with the pax? They sit up front, make announcements, and sometimes stand at the door as everybody is deplaning. They don't deal with the pax - the FA's do. Of course it is going to be better understood by somebody that flies more often - but many times the airline crews keep the pax completely in the dark.
Aspiring to be
Well-known member
- Joined
- Nov 13, 2002
- Posts
- 95
From some of your post (WilliE) it is easy to see that you do not think highly of 121 pilots. I am guilty of not thinking of commuter pilots as 121 but rather as 135 as they were when that type of flying started. If you like to think that doing your own wx, flight planning is a big deal then continue to do so. Yes, we use to do much the same at the airlines. Long-range flights require much more in wx planning than what you do from TEB to PBI. The type of airplanes I flew the last 25 years with the airline had much more than 15 minute turn times. It is almost impossible to load one in less than 20 minutes. Average load times for a wide body are about thirty minutes. Most wide body flights require about one hour for turn. Minimum turn times for the small ones like the DC-9 was about 30 minutes at small stations and maybe 45 minutes at places like Atl, ORD, and LGA etc. The larger the aircraft the more time involved in turning one. Flight plans are canned now to make the system faster and more efficient. That fact does not hinder the PIC in anyway of changing the flight plan or fuel load etc in any way. The fact that flight plans are canned does only one thing and that is to give the PIC more time to do more important things than trying to reach FSS to file flight plans. I like using the JEP flight planning service as I get most of the information that I did at the airline. The fuel burns and options available make for a better and safer flight. It is also easier and less time consuming, more accurate, etc.
I do wonder if the reason for your bitterness toward the airlines is because they do not give much if any credit for your rotor time. I can assure you that I do not have say less than in excess of 25000 hours. I have flown aircraft that has minimum trip departure fuel that exceeds the weight of anything with wings that you have flown. Make me a better pilot? No, but it does give me a lot more experience than you have. I have never flown and really have never had any desire to fly those things with rotors.
If you want to think that flying the small jets take more skill then go ahead and think. If you want to think that a major airline pilot Captain does not control his flight then you have a great deal to learn. Flying to some of the airports that we fly to is many times tougher than what most 121 pilots have to do and yes, it does take a different experience level. Most 121 pilots do not have that much recent experience flying small airplanes into small and difficult airports but they have done so in the past. I have worked for an airline that we had to do circling approaches down to 600 feet all the time. Peaces of cake in small airplanes but try it in a wide body. 600 feet in a wide body with say average speed of about 160 knots, you are very close. I would rather be down to 300 feet in a Hawker than 600 in a wide body. I have made many circling approaches in a wide body down to minimum in mountainous terrain. I made a statement and one that I believe through my experience is true. You cannot say with any authority or knowledge that flying small jets are more difficult or the same because you do not know. You could teach me many things about helicopters but you lack the experience to tell me about the difference in the large as opposed to the small jets.
I do wonder if the reason for your bitterness toward the airlines is because they do not give much if any credit for your rotor time. I can assure you that I do not have say less than in excess of 25000 hours. I have flown aircraft that has minimum trip departure fuel that exceeds the weight of anything with wings that you have flown. Make me a better pilot? No, but it does give me a lot more experience than you have. I have never flown and really have never had any desire to fly those things with rotors.
If you want to think that flying the small jets take more skill then go ahead and think. If you want to think that a major airline pilot Captain does not control his flight then you have a great deal to learn. Flying to some of the airports that we fly to is many times tougher than what most 121 pilots have to do and yes, it does take a different experience level. Most 121 pilots do not have that much recent experience flying small airplanes into small and difficult airports but they have done so in the past. I have worked for an airline that we had to do circling approaches down to 600 feet all the time. Peaces of cake in small airplanes but try it in a wide body. 600 feet in a wide body with say average speed of about 160 knots, you are very close. I would rather be down to 300 feet in a Hawker than 600 in a wide body. I have made many circling approaches in a wide body down to minimum in mountainous terrain. I made a statement and one that I believe through my experience is true. You cannot say with any authority or knowledge that flying small jets are more difficult or the same because you do not know. You could teach me many things about helicopters but you lack the experience to tell me about the difference in the large as opposed to the small jets.
Frac Daddy
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 11, 2001
- Posts
- 384
A2B
I have nothing against 121 pilots, I was one for quite awhile before I got here where I want to be. Just because I was an "Airline" pilot it didn't give me a superiority complex about it as apparently it has given you. I just disagree with all your assertions about the bigger the plane is, the harder it is to fly. I think that is a very simplistic attitude and for the most part, wrong.
I have nothing against 121 pilots, I was one for quite awhile before I got here where I want to be. Just because I was an "Airline" pilot it didn't give me a superiority complex about it as apparently it has given you. I just disagree with all your assertions about the bigger the plane is, the harder it is to fly. I think that is a very simplistic attitude and for the most part, wrong.
Aspiring to be
Well-known member
- Joined
- Nov 13, 2002
- Posts
- 95
KeroseneSnorter
Robust Member
- Joined
- Oct 26, 2003
- Posts
- 1,530
I would have to agree with wilie. Bigger is not harder. And yes I do have widebody time.
Aspiring, I think you are confusing experience with skill. There is no more skill required for a bigger airplane, You just need the experience to think bigger so to speak. Size is alot like speed, you just have to think farther ahead. That is what IOE is for, to get you used to the sight picture required etc.
You mentioned v1 cuts and the like earlier. I would rather do 50 v1 cuts in any jet you choose instead of just one in any prop. Jets are easy, stand on the rudder, max power, and hold until safe altitude. Unless you are a pee-poor pilot you will live. Now lose one on a piston or a turbo prop that doesn't auto feather and you have your hands full.
Skill and experience are two different things. yes you have more experience than those RJ guys, Not necessarly more skill.
If you really want to see a skilled pilot, go find the poor slob flying that baron or 310 with one failed engine shooting a 200 1/2 ils with no flight director who is lucky if he even has an HSI.
I was the best Inst. pilot I will ever be when I flew a raggety light twin around every night. I am now like you, I have experience but have lost some of my skill. But thats the wonders of the modern glass cockpit. Could I still do what I did back then with a baron? Yes, but not without some single engine work first. Too much extra stuff to do in a light twin that I don't have to think about in a jet.
Fire away.
Aspiring, I think you are confusing experience with skill. There is no more skill required for a bigger airplane, You just need the experience to think bigger so to speak. Size is alot like speed, you just have to think farther ahead. That is what IOE is for, to get you used to the sight picture required etc.
You mentioned v1 cuts and the like earlier. I would rather do 50 v1 cuts in any jet you choose instead of just one in any prop. Jets are easy, stand on the rudder, max power, and hold until safe altitude. Unless you are a pee-poor pilot you will live. Now lose one on a piston or a turbo prop that doesn't auto feather and you have your hands full.
Skill and experience are two different things. yes you have more experience than those RJ guys, Not necessarly more skill.
If you really want to see a skilled pilot, go find the poor slob flying that baron or 310 with one failed engine shooting a 200 1/2 ils with no flight director who is lucky if he even has an HSI.
I was the best Inst. pilot I will ever be when I flew a raggety light twin around every night. I am now like you, I have experience but have lost some of my skill. But thats the wonders of the modern glass cockpit. Could I still do what I did back then with a baron? Yes, but not without some single engine work first. Too much extra stuff to do in a light twin that I don't have to think about in a jet.
Fire away.
Live4flyng
Well-known member
- Joined
- May 28, 2003
- Posts
- 313
Check Please!
http://www.centredaily.com/mld/centredaily/news/7716354.htm?template=contentModules/printstory.jsp
Here is one for you, Aspiring to be.
http://www.centredaily.com/mld/centredaily/news/7716354.htm?template=contentModules/printstory.jsp
Here is one for you, Aspiring to be.
Snorter,
Very well said. There are lots of different types of flying jobs. Some, out of necessity, require more hands on skill than others. Doing a snap roll 50' above a runway in an aerobatic airplane, now that takes skill and precision. Think about the fighter jocks doing their thing with zip autopilot. Think about the helicopter guys who hopefully not only fly their aircraft but wear it as an extension of their body. There are numerous examples of this in all endeavors of aviation and way to many to mention here. The most mature thing one can do as a pilot is to be able to recognize and appreciate the skills that some of our brethren have in not only our own line of work but others. Cutting each other down sure isn't professional and in most cases it is an indicator of an inferiority complex.
Very well said. There are lots of different types of flying jobs. Some, out of necessity, require more hands on skill than others. Doing a snap roll 50' above a runway in an aerobatic airplane, now that takes skill and precision. Think about the fighter jocks doing their thing with zip autopilot. Think about the helicopter guys who hopefully not only fly their aircraft but wear it as an extension of their body. There are numerous examples of this in all endeavors of aviation and way to many to mention here. The most mature thing one can do as a pilot is to be able to recognize and appreciate the skills that some of our brethren have in not only our own line of work but others. Cutting each other down sure isn't professional and in most cases it is an indicator of an inferiority complex.
Share this page
Latest resources
-
-
-
-
-
AC 90-89C - Amateur-Built Aircraft and Ultralight Flight Testing HandbookAmateur-Built Aircraft and Ultralight Flight Testing Handbook
- Neal
- Updated:
