F/O flying on pax legs

[CapnVegetto]

The airlines alternate every leg, regardless of aircraft size, weather, pax on board, or anything. (There might be a few minor exceptions, but very few to the above.) The 135 and 91 operator's continue to strive to elevate themselves to airline SOP's and safety but don't let the F/O's fly except on empty legs. I don't get it. If they are good enough to hire then they are good enough to fly.

Funny how the corporate accident rate is LOWER despite this ridiculous claim.

 

[100-1/2]

Sorry, Veg,

When you add up all the flight hours, the accident rate per 100K hours is higher in charter. When you add all of GA together (91 and 135) the rates are pretty close to 121. Aso, I believe the FAA numbers include many foreign countries' part 121/125 operations.

100-1/2

 

[CapnVegetto]

Sorry, Veg,

When you add up all the flight hours, the accident rate per 100K hours is higher in charter. When you add all of GA together (91 and 135) the rates are pretty close to 121. Aso, I believe the FAA numbers include many foreign countries' part 121/125 operations.

100-1/2

Everyone knows charter is high, b/c there are too many shady ops out there. I'm mostly 91, (some 135) our company has NEVER had an accident in over 20 years of existence. We operate 10 aircraft. Look at the 91 corporate #'s Average them out. The accident rate is DRASTICALLY lower than 121.

 

[Ace-of-the-Base]

Everyone knows charter is high, b/c there are too many shady ops out there. I'm mostly 91, (some 135) our company has NEVER had an accident in over 20 years of existence. We operate 10 aircraft. Look at the 91 corporate #'s Average them out. The accident rate is DRASTICALLY lower than 121.

Shady ops? Look at some of the best companies: Jet Aviation, Clay Lacy, and who could forget AvJet. These don't seem like shady ops at all and they've all had big accidents.

Think a little before you post. Someone impressionable might be reading.

Ace

 

[Gulfstream 200]

Everyone knows charter is high, b/c there are too many shady ops out there. I'm mostly 91, (some 135) our company has NEVER had an accident in over 20 years of existence. We operate 10 aircraft. Look at the 91 corporate #'s Average them out. The accident rate is DRASTICALLY lower than 121.

um...Capt.
You are on-demand 135. (mostly? sometimes?)
Your safety record is far worse than 121.

http://www.ntsb.gov/aviation/Stats.htm

Table 6 -vs- Table 9.

 

[CapnVegetto]

um...Capt.
You are on-demand 135. (mostly? sometimes?)
Your safety record is far worse than 121.

http://www.ntsb.gov/aviation/Stats.htm

Table 6 -vs- Table 9.

I might do 1 135 flight a month on average. We're about 95% part 91. And read my other post.......in 20 years, NO ACCIDENTS.

Nothing personally yet for me either, (knock on wood) although my career is still fairly young. I hope to keep it that way forever. (knocking on more wood).

 

[CapnVegetto]

Shady ops? Look at some of the best companies: Jet Aviation, Clay Lacy, and who could forget AvJet. These don't seem like shady ops at all and they've all had big accidents.

Think a little before you post. Someone impressionable might be reading.

Ace

Think little before you post. When you were little, that guy in the mall didn't seem to not be Santa Claus, did he?

Ask a lot of people what they think of Mr. Scabman Clay Lacy and his operation.

 

[Ace-of-the-Base]

Nice try

Think little before you post. When you were little, that guy in the mall didn't seem to not be Santa Claus, did he?

Ask a lot of people what they think of Mr. Scabman Clay Lacy and his operation.

I didn't say Clay (the man) wasn't shady, I said the operation isn't. Anyhow: you got one out of three. I guess you don't see the point.

As for your other post: who cares what percent you fly 91 vs 135. Most 135 companies (85% to be exact) don't own the planes that they fly 135. Therefore, there is an owner that is also a user (read: 91 ops). Flapping lips, not alot of facts, but thats ok, we see this stuff alot on Flightinfo.com

Ace

 

[CaSyndrm]

I might do 1 135 flight a month on average. We're about 95% part 91. And read my other post.......in 20 years, NO ACCIDENTS.

Nothing personally yet for me either, (knock on wood) although my career is still fairly young. I hope to keep it that way forever. (knocking on more wood).

People with careers as young as yours usually show more respect. It is a small world and you would be surprised what can bite you in the butt when you least expect it.

 

[AZ Typed]

Folks: From my short experience in 121 and 135/91 - it's not the operations that are shady. Good equipment, nice staff, hard working maintenance teams - it's not the opertion. It's the second rate flying! Lack of SOPs, lack of training (FS / SimuFlite), and lack of experience - all contribute to shady cockpit ops. I'm not Maverick - but I have yet to fly with some people outside of 121 who have a damn clue in the airplane. Yes - the clueless ones exist in 121 - oh yes they do! But the SOPs, training, and overall experience (yes, I know of the 500 hours guys) typically lead to safe, efficient cockpit ops. Here are some real life examples from numerous first hand sources:


1. blast off VFR in So Cal during a TOA - LGB hop: violation bait!

2. blast off without a clue as to takeoff data, second segment, DP, etc!

3. 490...because we can.

4. paperwork - a disaster.

5. approach to mins - no brief, no idea how to brief, no idea what to brief.

6. guys leaving the cockpit to go take a nap in back - nice.

7. blasting off without an alternate 135 - and without any idea that it's required no matter what.

8. taxiing really fast to the runway - only to wait for release (and the taxi check takes a few min. anyways, and the pax are tossed around the back) - that shows complete lack of awareness.

9. just overall inefficient!

Of course - this all happens in 121, 135, 91. But it seems standard in the 135/91 world from my own experience and first hand stories of colleagues. You get all this crap in 121...but it's far and few between and typically corrected in recurrent. Alright - let the tomato tossing begin.

AZT