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

 

[English]

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

Obviously, I'm clueless. What's wrong with going VFR all of 5 miles, TOA-LGB, in VMC conditions?

 

[English]

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

Um....try again.

 

[FracCapt]

Folks: From my short experience in 121 and 135/91

That says it all. You admonish the 135/91 crews, but sing the praises of the 121 crews....and you have experienced all this in your vast aviation career thus far. Go ahead and preach to us how all of us in the 135/91 world are cowboys, unsafe, and don't know the regs....and how great you are because you're a 121 guy. Go ahead.

 

[EMB170Pilot]

shut up AZ

or as the phrase goes "Think before you speak"

 

[CapnVegetto]

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 dang 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

Who in the hell did you work for?

I could argue that my limited 121 experience was exactly the opposite of yours. I've never flown with worse pilots than I did at the airlines. I had never seen such a lack of knowledge regarding the airplane being flown, flight planning, fuel planning, and general basic knowledge. Most of the guys I met couldn't take a pi$$ without an explicit checklist procedure on how to hold their di-k.

But.....my argument to that point would be as stupid as yours. Sure, I met some dumba$$es, so did you. I can't assume it's that way everywhere....that would be as stupid as I claim that some of these guys were.

I find most of your numbered arguments to be dumb. What's wrong with a short VFR leg if it's clear and a million? Answer: NOTHING. If I'm taking off of a 10,000 foot runway on a Kansas plain in a Citation 1,000 lbs under max gross weight with no obsticles in the way and it's 70 degrees, why the hell do I need to compute takeoff data? I know I'm going to need about 2,500 feet of runway, so I compute Vspeeds, T/O power, and do a quick abbreviated briefing. Why? Because I KNOW MY AIRPLANE. I don't need a dispatch release to tell me I need about 1,400 lbs of fuel to fly for about an hour, takeoff to touchdown. That's my JOB. 490...why not? If it saves fuel, is a better ride? Give me one good reason why not? I hear Gulfstreams at 450 and 470 all the time. Please explain to me what they are doing wrong. Paperwork: I don't use releases. I'd rather do it myself, because then I know it's going to be done right. Don't even ask me how many releases I got at the airline that was f-cked up. Leaving the cockpit to nap in the back? As opposed to napping up front like in the CRJ? Ask any CRJ pilot what the 'overhead panel scan' is. 135 alternate required no matter what? I suppose all those alternate minimums and requirements that we have to memorize are just for show? Where in the hell did you get that idea? Just overall inefficient huh? You know how many 2 hour delays I took at ORD for stupid crap like 1 panel light not working, door on the trash recepticle broken, waiting for a late release, bags, gate hold, slow agents, airstart, etc. You call that efficiency??

C'mon dude, use your head. 121 is not God. Neither is 91 and 135. Everything has got its problems. Bad pilots, bad employees, whatever, you're going to find it everywhere. You just happen to be one of the guys that worked for a really bad one, and got a terrible experience. Likewise, I worked for a $hitty airline, and got a $hitty experience. Nothing is perfect, one way is NOT better than the other, we could sit here and argue this all day, until we're blue in the face. I, for one, would rather go play golf. C'ya!

 

[English]

And hey, AZ typed, I'm pretty sure I have more 121 experience that you (3 airlines). I've run into more cowboys at your elevated-status 121 carriers than I ever have at 135 operators.

 

[HMR]

AZ- Other than #7 I can relate to the items you listed. It doesn't matter whether it's 91/121/135. It's the pilot, not the operation, who make these choices.

CapnVegetto- You find most of the "numbered arguments to be dumb"? I think most of them are excellent.

1. TOA-LGB VFR? No thanks. That's probably one of the most dangerous slices of airspace in SoCal. I've had more close calls there as an instructor and later as a King Air pilot than I care to remember. I'm pretty familiar with that area and going VFR gives me the willies. Maybe I'm just a wuss... but I'll live to be an old wuss.

2. "blast off without a clue as to takeoff data, second segment, DP, etc" I don't get too uptight about runway req'ts on 10,000', sea-level runways when it's 10C. But "second segment, DP, etc" is ALWAYS important.

3. "490...because we can" My plane tops out at 450. There are few times a pilot can get it there. There are VERY few times the book says it can go there. Yet I've seen guys fly along at .65 with the nose pointed up 5 degrees in level cruise thinking they're doing something worthwhile.

4. The guys with messy paperwork usually have a messy car, stinky house, fly with cookie crumbs in their lap, are always spilling coffee on the FMS...

5. "approach to mins - no brief, no idea how to brief, no idea what to brief." Survived it, have the twitch to prove it. I've had partners at FSI that couldn't brief an approach with the sim stopped. How do these guys get through the cracks?

6. "guys leaving the cockpit to go take a nap in back" I hear pilots brag about it.

7.

8 & 9- I'm tired of typing.

BTW- If a company does 364 PT91 flights and 1 PT135 flight each year... you're still flying 135 on-demand.

 

[Ace-of-the-Base]

3. 490...because we can.

I'm sorry, this one is just so open.

Wasn't it a 121 crew on a deadhead in an RJ that just wanted to see how high it would go.

I really wish everyone would use facts to support their opinions.

Ace

 

[AZ Typed]

That says it all. You admonish the 135/91 crews, but sing the praises of the 121 crews....and you have experienced all this in your vast aviation career thus far. Go ahead and preach to us how all of us in the 135/91 world are cowboys, unsafe, and don't know the regs....and how great you are because you're a 121 guy. Go ahead.

Oh boy...I'm not a 121 guy. I'm 91/135 now.

 

[AZ Typed]

AZ- Other than #7 I can relate to the items you listed. It doesn't matter whether it's 91/121/135. It's the pilot, not the operation, who make these choices.

CapnVegetto- You find most of the "numbered arguments to be dumb"? I think most of them are excellent.

1. TOA-LGB VFR? No thanks. That's probably one of the most dangerous slices of airspace in SoCal. I've had more close calls there as an instructor and later as a King Air pilot than I care to remember. I'm pretty familiar with that area and going VFR gives me the willies. Maybe I'm just a wuss... but I'll live to be an old wuss.

EXACTLY

2. "blast off without a clue as to takeoff data, second segment, DP, etc" I don't get too uptight about runway req'ts on 10,000', sea-level runways when it's 10C. But "second segment, DP, etc" is ALWAYS important.

NO KIDDING that 10,000 in Kansas is no big deal. It's the CO mountains that I see this crap happening in. Come on...I know most of you think I'm a moron, and maybe I am...but common sense does prevail in the take off data arguement - especially at 7,000 MSL with DA 9500.


3. "490...because we can" My plane tops out at 450. There are few times a pilot can get it there. There are VERY few times the book says it can go there. Yet I've seen guys fly along at .65 with the nose pointed up 5 degrees in level cruise thinking they're doing something worthwhile.

again...EXACTLY NOT TO MENTION: at 49,000 you have 1/10 the pressure at sea level - so you're practically in space. Have fun on the rapid decomp!!!

4. The guys with messy paperwork usually have a messy car, stinky house, fly with cookie crumbs in their lap, are always spilling coffee on the FMS...

SO RIGHT ON.

5. "approach to mins - no brief, no idea how to brief, no idea what to brief." Survived it, have the twitch to prove it. I've had partners at FSI that couldn't brief an approach with the sim stopped. How do these guys get through the cracks?

again...SO RIGHT ON


6. "guys leaving the cockpit to go take a nap in back" I hear pilots brag about it.

and again...SO RIGHT ON

7.

8 & 9- I'm tired of typing.

ME TOO

BTW- If a company does 364 PT91 flights and 1 PT135 flight each year... you're still flying 135 on-demand.

Alright - our ops specs say alternates at all times. I'm new to 135 so I thought it was required no matter what on a 135 flight - call me crazy.

Thanks Folks!