ASA grapevine..

[Speedtape]

Having flown both the 200/700 at ASA and the 3/5/7 at SWA there is not a safety problem but a line in the sand problem. Once the MEC decided it was not safe, when can they back down from that statement? Once they established the different payscales when can they go backwards to one rate. The problem is not in the operation of the aircraft, most pilots are capable, the problem is the line drawn in the sand. Who redraws it first at ASA, and a what costs do they go before it is too late for the good of the membership?

ASA MEC and membership has dug in on an issue that no one else has in the industry, is it smart? We will see, is it still in the best interest of the membership? No

Actually, when the 700 first came to ASA, Nelson and Drew both told me that the FAA requested that ASA not have all pilots fly both the 200 and 700. Apparently, during certification of the 700, initially, the differences greatly exceeded the number required to have same type certification. Then they went back and made a successful attempt to change enough things to barely get under the required limit. That is the reason for some of the combined checklist that seemed convoluted, like flaps/slats failure.

I have flown both aircraft also. There would be a safety issue--but to what degree? There is a distinct difference in landing attitude and approach which would definitely present issues in doing Cat II approaches. There are obviously system differences and different levels of automation with those systems. Can it be done safely? I think the argument should also include human factor considerations regarding worse case scenarios. Consider the long duty periods and worse case weather conditions coupled with fatigue. That is where the rubber meets the road. Could some pilots fly both safely all the time? Maybe. Could all pilots fly both safely all the time? Probably not! The argument has to consider the lowest common denominator in the worst conditions.

A previous poster mentioned the 757/767 dual qual. From talking with a mainline pilot who flies both, he stated that Boeing went to great lengths to address all matters in design from a human factors perspective. He claims that there are very few differences at all in the operational characteristics from the human factors perspective. Apparently, Boeing did it right! However, keep in mind, this dual qual only applies to one version of the 767.

Comair operates the 700 and 200 separately probably for the same reasons that ASA does. It has nothing to do with the MEC in my opinion. It has to do with the respective local FAA offices that provide oversight. Had ASA wanted to have pilots fly both because they thought it was safe, they would have done so because it has to save them big bucks!

 

[Speedtape]

I don't see the problem of flying both, but not at the same pay scale. It is an airplane, and we are pilots. I personally know a man who flew both F4U's and P-80's in Korea. Now how could that get much different? What is the difference in flying an RJ at work and going home and getting in a Pitts or J-3.

Because in a Pitts, you can only kill 1 person, and in a J-3 you can only kill 2--unless someone gets in the way on the ground!

I once knew a pilot who flew the Brazilia and a Pitts, and he was probably the best pilot I have ever flown with! His attitude and opinion seemed similar to yours. One day he climbed into his Pitts, but he never climbed out! Unfortunately, although he was an excellent pilot, he was a bold pilot and we all know that little "Diddy!"

What ever you fly, fly safe! He left a wife and children behind.

 

[www.]

Because in a Pitts, you can only kill 1 person, and in a J-3 you can only kill 2--unless someone gets in the way on the ground!

I once knew a pilot who flew the Brazilia and a Pitts, and he was probably the best pilot I have ever flown with! His attitude and opinion seemed similar to yours. One day he climbed into his Pitts, but he never climbed out! Unfortunately, although he was an excellent pilot, he was a bold pilot and we all know that little "Diddy!"

What ever you fly, fly safe! He left a wife and children behind.

Are we speaking about Kenny?

 

[ASApuppy]

Another important point about comparing Boeing and CRJ dual quals. The Boeings were designed side by side at the same time. They were flight tested back to back. The CRJ 700 was not even a thought on the engineers minds when they designed the first CRJ. Big difference.

 

[BIGGOAT]

I flew the 700 for a year and have been on the 200 for several years. To be dual qualified would NOT be dangerous in any way! If Mesa and Skywest pilots can do it, then so can we. I used to fly PIC in King Air 90's and SIC in Citations and Diamond/Beechjets and I never had a problem. Alot of corporate pilots fly multiple type aircraft safely. As for pay, that is another issue. We could be dual qualified at ASA and still have seperate pay rates.
My personal opinion, though, leave it alone because the schedules on the 200 are much better. It's all about me.

Regards,
Goat

 

[John Pennekamp]

I have flown both the -200 and the -700 as a captain for several thousand hours each. I am here to say the differences are huge.

Aside from the limitations, the profiles are different, the speeds on approach are different, the landing picture is different, and even the switches in the cockpit are different. You will not find this in any other dual qual type, such as the B757/767 or ATR 42/72.

Our own training department is opposed to dual qual because the IPs find it difficult. The fact that Skywest, Mesa and others do it and haven't had a wreck yet doesn't make it safe or wise.

 

[SSDD]

I fly both, and let me tell you, there are differences. Can we fly both? Obviously. Can we fly both safely? Not consistently. Whenever a guy changes types, those first few legs are questionable. You pray that nothing goes wrong.

Going from the 200 to the 700 is usually easier, except for the landings. The automation makes up for the lack of familiarity. But going from the 700 to the 200 is ugly.

A lot of guys think its cool, but they're just getting by.

 

[79%N1]

Like someone said, we own it, and management wants it. So let them buy it from us for something more important. I say, let them have that, and Pref Bidding, negotiate it for somethings we want.....AND LETS GET THIS DAMN THING DONE!!!!

 

[CFIT]

When is ASA's 5th year anniversary?

 

[John Pennekamp]

When is ASA's 5th year anniversary?

After we file for single carrier status, then hold a referendum for ALPA, then merge our seniority lists by DOH in accordance with the Allegheny-Mohawk decision. Hope you got at least 5 years if you want to be a captain, tough guy.