Colgan Contract

[BRA]

I've heard from Senic Airlines twin otter drivers that the plane is simply a different animal. Extremely top heavy when landing and rolling out in a cross wind. I think that plane almost doesn't count in this thread based on what i have heard. And honestly, the chief pilot at colgan has backed guys that have screwed up at colgan in the past. He has written letters and what not. At least for the dudes that made honest mistakes anyway.

 

[BSkin]

Bskin,
38kts at 33ft sound familiar?

Actually, no. If that's in the 717 manual, can you give me the section and page. This isn't the first time I've looked for it and never heard it in initial ground school, or recurrent -- atleast I don't think I did.

 

[-9Capt]

Page T-69 of the slippery red book.

 

[ihateyourego]

The twin otter example was terrible. There is no excuse for losing directional control in a 25 knot wind. I have a couple thousand hours in that airplane, in all sorts of weather, and never had any major problems in stiff crosswinds. The airplane does like to weathervane with that enormous freakin tail, but it also gives great rudder authority with that enormous freaking tail. The accident had to be some form of mechanical problem like the hydraulic nose wheel steering or something, or some kind of pilot error.

Sam, everyone has to respect a pilot erring on the side of caution. But as a 1900 captain in the northeast I just have to disagree with you. I also believe in having limits, and not being pushed around, but the beech is a great airplane thats very capable and safe. The beech is so easy, especially with a big headwind, to carry plenty of extra speed on final for any LLWS and still use 1500 feet of runway.

And a quick note for the person who started the thread complaining about the planes, c'mon man. What did you expect to fly with 700 hours and 25 multi. You used colgan to get to 1000 hours and jumped ship to fly for 25 bucks an hour in an RJ. Don't B/S us with that crap. We all have to start somewhere. And I can't wait to leave either. But I manned up. Stuck it out, and I have real chance to move up in this industry. Not sidestep.

 

[Sam Snead]

Sam, everyone has to respect a pilot erring on the side of caution. But as a 1900 captain in the northeast I just have to disagree with you. I also believe in having limits, and not being pushed around, but the beech is a great airplane thats very capable and safe. The beech is so easy, especially with a big headwind, to carry plenty of extra speed on final for any LLWS and still use 1500 feet of runway.

A common theme in this thread is how great the Beech 1900 is. The airplane of itself is "safe". It will bravely go wherever you take it.

The judgement of the captain in question (me) is what I was trying to highlight, originally.

I would suggest that flying in LLWS conditions is something that the 1900, nor any other airplane, can protect you and your passengers from. Carrying "extra speed" might provide you with a false sense of security. You don't need a 2000 FPM downdraft, like that from a microburst, to cause an incident that would make you (the pilot) very unhappy.

I would also suggest that no FOM tells you to carry "extra speed" in LLWS conditions: the "extra speed" is to add to target speed for gusts. I believe that the FOM would say avoid. Please post your FOM verbage if this is not correct.

Under the NorEaster conditions I mentioned, it's not the sheer ability of pilot or airplane that concerns me; it's the margin of safety in that operation.

On the day in question I said no when the company said yes. I spent the remainder of my PIC time there navigating the minefield of MELs, bogus dispatches, upset passengers, etc.

It was the only time in my career that I did a 'pilot doesn't wanna go'; and the reason it came up on this thread was because the discussion of Colgan company practices reminded me of the NorEaster story.

I still defy anyone to come up with factory limits on total wind component limitation for the 1900. Just curious about the legal limit at a company with a vague FOM circa 2000.

 

[ihateyourego]

All this feedback and you cant let it go. You made a bad decision. You still don't know if it was the right one. You came on here looking for someone to back you up and it didn't happen. Now you keep backing up your decision with horrible examples like the twin otter one, and you just can't face the music. We all know Colgan will dispatch you to anything legal. Am I going to land in RKD with a 20 knot x-wind on a poor runway. Nope. Its legal but I won't do it. Have I landed in boston with 48 knot winds on the ATIS. Yep. And I know it was safe. So it wasn't safe for you, good for you. But don't tell me I'm unsafe. I know mine and the airplanes abilities, I know my rules and regulations, and I pride myself on always putting safety first. Unless it's the last leg home then I'll fly in anything. I'm kidding. Look Sam. Lighten up. Alot of people don't agree with you. And you won't convince us of any thing else. And look for a better example. Something with high winds not associated with a t'storm where the winds were a contributing factor of the accident.

 

[Sam Snead]

.........

 

[BSkin]

Page T-69 of the slippery red book.

Thanks -9, I'll check it out.

 

[Hung Start]

Hmmmmm, Boston has 10,000 ft going in how many directions??

8 MEL's

Well,,,, what is the MEL there for?

Look, I never worked for Colgan, but was a contractor for them for a very short time. I am no fan, I think they are one step over a Boston Taxi. Nawwww,, a taxi is better maintained!

But,, you signed the paper. Do the right thing.

If it is so bad, don't go. Then let them justify firing you for not flying a POS.
But,, looks like you didn't have the cheese,,, just the whine!

 

[av8ercricket]

Colgan Training contract

Lets keep this professional and polite please. The person is asking for assistance not sarcasm. We know Colgan does not operate on the up and up and we are only looking out for our safety. Why are then Colgan's people, on a QT, asking pilot's to make sure they are legal to fly (30 in 7), by the end of the week? It has happened to me, I was legal to begin with and the Captain has been flying already for a day or two, then they are shaving my time so money is coming out of my pocket! By then the Captain times out by the 15th or by the 20th of the month and has the rest of the month off. How can you say something, then get yourself black balled?
Getting back to the original problem, is the contract legally enforceable? Why was no one given the contract to look at in advanced? Why is there no recind date? What provisions and rights, if any, were given to the pilot's? Why did they say that they pay per diem and then don't? If a pilot doesn't pass training, then nothing is owed but if they pass and leave early, they do?

 

[av8ercricket]

Save the planet, it's the only one with chocolate!

 

[chperplt]

Save the planet, it's the only one with chocolate!

How do you know?

 

[caneylane]

okay

not worth it

 

[BSkin]

....., again

 

[Mr Wu]

Lets keep this professional and polite please. The person is asking for assistance not sarcasm. We know Colgan does not operate on the up and up and we are only looking out for our safety. Why are then Colgan's people, on a QT, asking pilot's to make sure they are legal to fly (30 in 7), by the end of the week? It has happened to me, I was legal to begin with and the Captain has been flying already for a day or two, then they are shaving my time so money is coming out of my pocket! By then the Captain times out by the 15th or by the 20th of the month and has the rest of the month off. How can you say something, then get yourself black balled?
Getting back to the original problem, is the contract legally enforceable? Why was no one given the contract to look at in advanced? Why is there no recind date? What provisions and rights, if any, were given to the pilot's? Why did they say that they pay per diem and then don't? If a pilot doesn't pass training, then nothing is owed but if they pass and leave early, they do?

Caneylane, please tell me that you didn't make up a profile to agree with yourself because you couldn't get anyone else to do so,or are there two douchebags that don't have any honor here?

 

[iflyabeech]

Ok, I was going to leave this one alone until I read the "Toksook Bay" comment. That Twotter was an ERA aviation plane on a 121 flight. Comparing Toksook Bay (http://www.airnav.com/airport/PAOO) to Boston is like comparing a Piper Cub to the Space Shuttle. This is a 3,000 ft (a long runway for Alaska) gravel strip on the side of a mountain with an upslope and 5 or 6 ft snowbanks on each side. It might be 60 ft wide without the snow. And it was covered in glare ice as usual. These are all normal conditions in Alaska.
I have been there many times. Actually, I have only landed on this new runway a couple of times, the old one looks like this: http://www.alaska.faa.gov/fai/images/YKDELTA/OOK-b.jpg
I have been given a hard time because I turned down a flight in 40 knots of wind. But it was to a small airport like Toksook Bay with glare ice and it was a crosswind, not a headwind! The aircraft you described in the Toksook example screwed up a standard crosswind landing to a short icy runway in gusty, turbulent conditions and was flying VFR in weather that was probobly around 500 ft and 2 miles, if Toksook Bay lived up to its reputations.
What you are talking about in Boston is different. 40 knots of headwind means its time to rent a 152 and see if you can fly it backwards! I mean really, nothing unsafe about it other that the pilot was being a wus! Geez!
Oh yeah man, learn the difference between a headwind and a crosswind! (you might also want to revamp your definition of a "short runway!"