F/O flying on pax legs

[Paradoxus]

I recently learned of a rather disturbing, highly unprofessional policy in place at my company (a large, on demand cargo/pax operator). F/O's flying passenger trips are simply not allowed to fly when pax are on board. In addition to learning this terrible truth about this place, I have discoved that the practice is commonplace with other operators. Not only is this subtle accusation of incompetance profoundly insulting, it shows an extreme lack of confidence in both a company's employee resources AND training practices.

 

[Rogue5]

Is it that the aircraft you are flying are single-pilot certified? In some cases if F.O.s are not typed then letting them fly wouldn't even be legal.

If thats not the case, go and get hired at any of the many regional 121 operators that are hiring now. You'll get all the legs you'd like and then some...

 

[Paradoxus]

These are 20-series lears and falcons. Why you would suggest taking a backwards-step career wise to escape an absurdity that can be corrected by flight crews from inside of the business is almost as bizzare as the practice itself.

To further clarify the matter, understand that I am not on the pax side of the company, and therefore remained unaware of this practice while flying cargo the past year.

 

[English]

I've heard of this before. At my first 135 job, when I was an SIC, I wasn't allowed to fly when passengers were on board. It wasn't for several months that I was allowed to fly even the owner. I think it had to do with the insecurity of my captain more than anything else.

My FO where I fly now flies every empty leg, and we share the occupied legs. So, he flies more than I do. Our (unwritten) policy at our company seems to be to give the FOs as much experience as they can handle safely and comfortably for the passengers. How else are they going to be a captain in training?

 

[Paradoxus]

Agreed, English. My biggest complaint about this nonsense is not the policy itself, its the high level of tolerance the flight crews exhibit with reguard to such policies. Their complacency is little more than a case of mass-ignorance about the standards of professionalism within our industry. A 100 hour period for new F/O's before they take the controls with pax on board would be more than a reasonable alternative.

My first 135 job was flying pax on-demand in the Bahamas--the "finesse" required to fly passengers to their level of satisfaction wasn't brain surgery.

 

[Captain4242]

Truthfully, I, as a Captain, never understood this policy. Even as a FO, it botherd me, but I never bitched about it. Luckily, I had good Captains who gave me every empty leg; I learned a lot from those experiences.
I treat it like any other rule: Follow it, but as PIC I am allowd to break it in the interest of safety.

 

[Snakum]

The more I read this kind of stuff, the more thankful I am that I work (part-time) with the best corporate Captains in the business. Sometimes I think I am the luckiest wannabe who ever lived.

Capt - "The weather's fine ... no Nervous Nellies in the back ... wanna fly all the legs today?"
Me - "Always, Boss."
Capt - "It's yours ... don't screw it up ... I'll jump in when (not if) you get overloaded!"
Me - "Thanks Captian!"
Capt. - "You work the radios on this one too, and we'll talk about Balanced Field Length and V1 speed. And when we get to the FBO this afternoon, we'll have a quiz on the turbine engine theory we discussed last week."



Minh
Luckiest Pilot Wannabe In the World
(OK ... second to Alex/Citation Kid who does this in jets. )

 

[Capt1124]

I recently learned of a rather disturbing, highly unprofessional policy in place at my company (a large, on demand cargo/pax operator). F/O's flying passenger trips are simply not allowed to fly when pax are on board. In addition to learning this terrible truth about this place, I have discoved that the practice is commonplace with other operators. Not only is this subtle accusation of incompetance profoundly insulting, it shows an extreme lack of confidence in both a company's employee resources AND training practices.

First of all, I understand the postion you're in. I usually fly with low time FOs and I try to give them as much experience as I can within the constraints of the operation. The constraints of the operation are guests in the back of the plane and my need to keep current. I do this because I started flying jets with very low time and people were very patient with me and helped me out. The last job I had as a 135 FO I *never* flew with passengers on board and often not when the plane was empty. The Catch 22 situation of never getting to fly the having to fly great when you get the rare chance is a real negative one to put people it.

Hwever, the anger you're expressing about the situation is really counter productive, especially if anybody notices. You can go back to flying cargo at the company you're at now, or get another job, or be patient, go with the flow, and wait for your chance.

Or, you can get on with a regional. Flying a regional jet is *not* a step backwards from flying a 20 series Lear or a Falcon 20, and is probably a better long term career move. This is especially true for somebody who seems to like to rock the boat.

 

[CapnVegetto]

Our company does the same thing. We're charter, and on pax legs, F/O's are not allowed to fly. However, I can see why this is, because we generally hire pretty new low-time F/O's (about with the qualifications new regional airline FO's have), and most of the time, none of them have ever even seen a jet. FO's fly all empty legs, (at the discretion of the captain), and from the left seat. (We're in Citations). I see the reason for this policy, (at least at first), because almost every newbie may be able to fly, but they can't fly smooth. They also have the tendency to get waaaaay behind the airplane (yes, even in a Citation), and that is simply a product of never being in a jet before. I know I was that way when I first started, and I learned a LOT simply from watching experienced captains fly. Corporate is a lot different from airlines. If you have a new FO flying the plane, and slam some rich guy all over the place, guess what, he's taking his money elsewhere. In the airlines, you go up front, slam the door, and if you give the pax a rough ride, what're they going to do? Nothing. Once the FO proves that they can fly the airplane smoothly and stay ahead of it, then they can fly pax legs. You get a guy with previous jet time, they're good to go almost right off the bat.....it's just learning the nuances of a new airplane. Stick a guy in there straight out of a 172, and chances are he'll be so far behind the airplane he'll have to rent a car and drive to our destination after we get there.

On my flights, the FO gets all empty legs in the left seat if he wants 'em, with a few exceptions. Examples would be putting a brand new guy in bad weather, or making someone land on a short narrow runway when I'd never seen them do it before. Usually, after someone gets some time, and they're flying, we'll be going home to our 8000 foot runway, and I'll say something like, 'OK, pretend like this runway is 75 feet wide and 3800 feet long. That's all you've got.', or 'OK, your autopilot and flight director just died, and you have to shoot an ILS down to mins.' If they handle it with no problem, then I know that I can let them go into a short runway in the left seat, or fly in bad weather to an unfamiliar airport.

 

[Paradoxus]

I'm no boat-rocker, and frankly I see no short/long-term benefit to flying for a regional airline as an F/O for 5+ years.

I'm not entirely sure I made this clear, but I do not fly on the pax side of the company. This sad situation was brought to my attention en passe by someone on the cargo side who had been pulled for those trips before.

 

[Biatch5]

My first 135 job was flying pax on-demand in the Bahamas--the "finesse" required to fly passengers to their level of satisfaction wasn't brain surgery.

Same here too. Where/Who did you fly the 402s for??

 

[Paradoxus]

I did my time in the islands with the BIA.

 

[Sgt. Hartman]

These policies that you fellas know of, are they written in stone in the SOP manual or are they unwritten?

 

[Flywrite]

If a company screens applicants and trains/checks to the standards they shouldnt have a problem with the FO flying, no matter who is onboard. A good Captain should understand that a part of being a Captain is being an instructor to some degree and should help the FO over the rough spots. Granted, some period of familiarization may be required following training to fly in the "real world" without making people sick, but that shouldnt be more than a normal IOE type period.


If, on the other hand the company does not screen applicants well and does not train and check to the proper standards, they have reason to worry about FOs flying PAX, but should worry more about the fact that they have no buisiness operating.

Though there may be a rough edge or two to smooth out on the line, a propertly trained FO should be able to operate the aircraft to the same standard as the Captain in normal everyday ops, and the emergencies that require immediate action to save the aircraft.

 

[aeronautic1]

Second in COMMAND

An F/O is a captain in training, plain and simple.

I have flown as F/O for several 135 companies in Lears to Gulfstreams. With each new step up, I went from "radio operator" to flying dead legs from the right seat until proficient to flying pax legs in the right seat to flying empty legs in the left seat until being promoted to PIC. It all takes a little bit of time and for an F/O to fly from the left seat at our company requires 1) a recommendation from the captain(s) you fly with and 2.) a written authorization from the company with operational control of the aircraft.

FLY HAPPY !!

 

[AZ Typed]

How's this for icing on the cake:

The guy in the left seat:

...has less time than you.
...can't handle more than one task at a time.
...typically has little to no situational awareness on many levels.
...zones out, often.
...really, honestly, doesn't belong in the left seat, at all.
...struggles in the right seat.
...and never lets you fly, ever.

And I'm not talking C402 stuff...multi-turbojets. Now call me crazy, but doesn't a type-rating mean you can multi-task, you know where you and your airplane are, you can fly from both seats, and you can do two things at once? I thought it did?

AZT

 

[Snakum]

...has less time than you.
...can't handle more than one task at a time.
...typically has little to no situational awareness on many levels.
...zones out, often.
...really, honestly, doesn't belong in the left seat, at all.
...struggles in the right seat.
...and never lets you fly, ever.

This is probably the same mental list my Captain makes when he has to fly with me.

Minhberg the Flatulant
D)

 

[CaSyndrm]

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.

 

[T-REX]

Chill Homer, the reason for the policy was some of you cargo boys floated some of the passengers and then they obviously never came back. Dumb policy, yea probably..but more of a self-preservation than discrimination on the FOs. Still picking up them Hookah chicas??gimme call when your in town. Later!

 

[AZ Typed]

The 135 and 91 operator's continue to strive to elevate themselves to airline SOP's and safety...QUOTE]

AMEN!!!

 

[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