Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Friendliest aviation Ccmmunity on the web
  • Modern site for PC's, Phones, Tablets - no 3rd party apps required
  • Ask questions, help others, promote aviation
  • Share the passion for aviation
  • Invite everyone to Flightinfo.com and let's have fun

NetJets Working on CASS Approval?

Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Modern secure site, no 3rd party apps required
  • Invite your friends
  • Share the passion of aviation
  • Friendliest aviation community on the web
Register   Log in
He's not "my man Obama"...


...He's our President.
 
glasspilot said:
Actually, she did say it and was then questioned about it and firmly stood by the quote and even expounded upon it.

Here are two links I came up with in about 3 seconds.


#1


#2



Enjoy...
Click to expand...

Next time do more than three seconds of research and actually watch the videos you are linking. I just wasted 10 minutes of my life listening for her to say "I can see Russia from my house". Not once did she say it. She said you can see Russian from land in Alaska, which is true. Whether you agree or disagree with her opinion on Alaska's proximity to Russia as being relevant, you were unable to prove to me that Palin (not Tina Fey) said "I can see Russia from my house". Nice try but you failed.
 
Oh, sorry. Didn't realize the "house" was the important part of the quote. In that case I agree, Tina Fey said it. My bad. I guess Palin would have made a great President after all.
 
Of course the "House" part is the important part. I am not disputing that she said you can see Russia from land in Alaska, as you could see in my first post on the subject.
 
Flopgut said:
How come I don't hear your Cessna out flying when it's CAT3? Is that something the airplane can't do or something they don't think you're capable of?
Click to expand...

Flopgut,

Please explain how a management decision based mostly on economics has any relevance to pilot capabilities?

Do the pilots that fly the Dash 8 at Horizon have superior capabilities to NW's DC9 pilots? Horizon operates its Dash 8's to either Cat II or Cat IIIa.

Do the pilots that fly the CRJ at Austrian Arrows have superior capabilities to any US based CRJ pilots? Austrian Arrows operates its CRJ's to Cat IIIa.

Did the pilots that flew the MD-80 at Swissair have superior capabilities to DL's current MD-80 pilots? Swissair operated its MD-80's to Cat IIIa.

Fact is that maintaining Cat II, or, IIIa-IIIc capabilities is a decision made primarily based on economics and nothing else!

IDEtoNJA
 
imacdog said:
Next time do more than three seconds of research and actually watch the videos you are linking. I just wasted 10 minutes of my life listening for her to say "I can see Russia from my house". Not once did she say it. She said you can see Russian from land in Alaska, which is true. Whether you agree or disagree with her opinion on Alaska's proximity to Russia as being relevant, you were unable to prove to me that Palin (not Tina Fey) said "I can see Russia from my house". Nice try but you failed.
Click to expand...

It is true, I have been there and you can see Russia. It's waaaay out there in the North Pacific at the end of the Aleutian Islands.
 
IDEtoNJA said:
Flopgut,

Please explain how a management decision based mostly on economics has any relevance to pilot capabilities?

Do the pilots that fly the Dash 8 at Horizon have superior capabilities to NW's DC9 pilots? Horizon operates its Dash 8's to either Cat II or Cat IIIa.

Do the pilots that fly the CRJ at Austrian Arrows have superior capabilities to any US based CRJ pilots? Austrian Arrows operates its CRJ's to Cat IIIa.

Did the pilots that flew the MD-80 at Swissair have superior capabilities to DL's current MD-80 pilots? Swissair operated its MD-80's to Cat IIIa.

Fact is that maintaining Cat II, or, IIIa-IIIc capabilities is a decision made primarily based on economics and nothing else!

IDEtoNJA
Click to expand...

FYI - No such thing as CAT III A, B, or C anymore. As a matter of fact there hasn't been CAT III A, B or C for many years.

And yes, you are right about the expense, but that holds true for any operation.


You ask to explain how a management decision based mostly on economics has any relevance to pilot capabilities?

There is a lot to consider and it's very relevent to pilot capabilities vs the equipment on the property and the market(s) the aircraft is operated in.

If all training was equal across the boards you would be correct, but it's not. Neither is the mission various carriers have. You mention Horizon and Northwest. The Northwest DC-9 pilots have a different configuation in virtually every airplane they get into and Horizon operates in miserable weather all the time. The cost decisions work alongside the hiring profile and cross section of pilots hired along with the pool of applicants. But that's just the beginning. Choices of approaches to be trained to and which are included in the training program, will it be Part 61 or AQP? Is the air carrier able to take advantage of AQP or is the turnover rage so fast that it becomes ineffective? For small air carriers that have pilots with less hours and are learning the business more training is needed than a hiring pool with more experienced pilots.

Cost is always a factor, and pilot cabilities are always part of the equation.
 
glasspilot said:
Oh, sorry. Didn't realize the "house" was the important part of the quote. In that case I agree, Tina Fey said it. My bad. I guess Palin would have made a great President after all.
Click to expand...
Best choice of the 4 candidates.

The only one who has an absolute sense of right and wrong. Therefore the only one who can consistently make correct decisions.

Now if we could only have elected Ron Paul....
 
B19 Flyer said:
FYI - No such thing as CAT III A, B, or C anymore. As a matter of fact there hasn't been CAT III A, B or C for many years.

And yes, you are right about the expense, but that holds true for any operation.


You ask to explain how a management decision based mostly on economics has any relevance to pilot capabilities?

There is a lot to consider and it's very relevent to pilot capabilities vs the equipment on the property and the market(s) the aircraft is operated in.

If all training was equal across the boards you would be correct, but it's not. Neither is the mission various carriers have. You mention Horizon and Northwest. The Northwest DC-9 pilots have a different configuation in virtually every airplane they get into and Horizon operates in miserable weather all the time. The cost decisions work alongside the hiring profile and cross section of pilots hired along with the pool of applicants. But that's just the beginning. Choices of approaches to be trained to and which are included in the training program, will it be Part 61 or AQP? Is the air carrier able to take advantage of AQP or is the turnover rage so fast that it becomes ineffective? For small air carriers that have pilots with less hours and are learning the business more training is needed than a hiring pool with more experienced pilots.

Cost is always a factor, and pilot cabilities are always part of the equation.
Click to expand...

B19,

Please reference your claim that CAT IIIa,b, & c does not exist anymore. I find it interesting as the AIM published in 2008 still refers to the differences between the three. Additionally, the sample of CAT III approach charts I have looked at still publish minimums for three sub-categories.

So ... You are saying that the current Delta MD-80 pilots are of a lower caliber then the pilots that used to fly the MD-80 for Swissair?! Unbelievable!

Someone as connected to management as you claim to be should know better. The decision should be based purely on economic necessity! Does the cost of training and equipment override the cost of operations without said qualification for the mission at hand. Let me ask you: Why do you believe most 121 ETOPS operators across the Atlantic choose to qualify its crews for CAT III operations? Is it a cost-benefit calculation; or, is it due to the superior capabilities of the pilots flying the Atlantic?

Your claim that such qualifications for smaller operators is prohibitive may or may not be true; however, there are smaller operators of one aircraft that have the qualifications!

IDEtoNJA
 
IDEtoNJA said:
B19,

Please reference your claim that CAT IIIa,b, & c does not exist anymore. I find it interesting as the AIM published in 2008 still refers to the differences between the three. Additionally, the sample of CAT III approach charts I have looked at still publish minimums for three sub-categories.

So ... You are saying that the current Delta MD-80 pilots are of a lower caliber then the pilots that used to fly the MD-80 for Swissair?! Unbelievable!

Someone as connected to management as you claim to be should know better. The decision should be based purely on economic necessity! Does the cost of training and equipment override the cost of operations without said qualification for the mission at hand. Let me ask you: Why do you believe most 121 ETOPS operators across the Atlantic choose to qualify its crews for CAT III operations? Is it a cost-benefit calculation; or, is it due to the superior capabilities of the pilots flying the Atlantic?

Your claim that such qualifications for smaller operators is prohibitive may or may not be true; however, there are smaller operators of one aircraft that have the qualifications!

IDEtoNJA
Click to expand...

Go dig up your opspecs and look at C060 if you are qualifed to operate CAT III. Op specs and equipment authorization govern how low you go, and the old language changed a long time ago although some of it is still hanging around. All of the C060 language has changed.

This was in response to the JAROPS harmonization back in '99. Go look at AC Circular 120-28D for the updated info.

On to the other subject:

I didn't make the statement about DAL pilots being of lower caliber than Swissair so don't put words in my mouth. That's unbelievable you would do that.

Qualification for CAT III ops for oceanic operations will depend on the business plan and route structure and if the operator will ever need to go below CAT I or 1800 RVR.

The fact is that every carrier has a different business plan. You can't expect a local regional flying turboprops to be looking at hiring minimums or an experience level of an international carrier, nor would you expect the cost structure to be the same. So, in essence, the cost is relevent.
 
B19 Flyer said:
Go dig up your opspecs and look at C060 if you are qualifed to operate CAT III. Op specs and equipment authorization govern how low you go, and the old language changed a long time ago although some of it is still hanging around. All of the C060 language has changed.

This was in response to the JAROPS harmonization back in '99. Go look at AC Circular 120-28D for the updated info.

On to the other subject:

I didn't make the statement about DAL pilots being of lower caliber than Swissair so don't put words in my mouth. That's unbelievable you would do that.

Qualification for CAT III ops for oceanic operations will depend on the business plan and route structure and if the operator will ever need to go below CAT I or 1800 RVR.

The fact is that every carrier has a different business plan. You can't expect a local regional flying turboprops to be looking at hiring minimums or an experience level of an international carrier, nor would you expect the cost structure to be the same. So, in essence, the cost is relevent.
Click to expand...

B19,

You are quoting AC 121-28D! However said AC does indeed discuss the differences between CAT IIIa and IIIb and its applicability! Paragraph 4.3.1 has the following sentence: "Category III landing minima are classified as Category IIIa,Category IIIb or Category IIIc" Paragraph 4.3.7 and 4.3.8 specifically discuss IIIa and IIIb.

You stated that an operator that is approved for SAAR operations makes the decision in part on other then economic reasons following a discussion of how superior one of our colleagues is, what should anyone reading infer from such a statement?!

You are mentioning regional operators with lower hiring standards! Does Austrian Arrows hire higher caliber crewmembers then Air Wisconsin due to the fact that Austrian Arrows has CAT IIIa authorization for its CRJ's? As a matter of fact the hiring minimums for Austrian Arrows have been traditionally quite a bit lower the Air Wisconsin; however, the operation in Central Europe necessitates SAAR operations. Does ExpressJet hire higher caliber crewmembers then AmericanEagle due to the fact that ExpressJet has CAT II authorization for its ERJ's?

You replied to one of my postings in which I said that SAAR operations are primarily an economic cost-benefit calculation, and are not, an indication to the caliber of crewmembers at an operation! You were the one that tried to prove me wrong! So ... Which is it? Is it an economic decision, or, is it an indication of the capabilities of the crewmembers?

IDEtoNJA
 
Last edited:
IDEtoNJA said:
B19,

...Does ExpressJet hire higher caliber crewmembers then AmericanEagle due to the fact that ExpressJet has CAT II authorization for its ERJ's?

IDEtoNJA
Click to expand...


AmericanEagle pilots signed a 16 year crap contract showing very poor decision making abilities. I would say yes, ExpressJet does hire higher caliber crewmembers.
 
It allows bottom feeders room to weasel in with lower compensation thus reducing the workforces of regionals where one can actually make a living.

Mesa sucks... Back to your regularly scheduled FI BS.
 
JungleJett said:
Nice attitude......

Honestly, I would not mind giving you 121 guys a ride if we could....even you ExpressJet folks...;)

The problem is that once you rode on us..we would never get the stink out!!


I kid......I kid......
Click to expand...


This thread has jumped the track. Boys..... a 121 jumpseat generally belongs to the Captain.

Pilots share a common quality. They accept responsibility (at least with respect to their job). And that responsibility is huge. This is a tie that binds.

My jumpseat is available to any comrade who shares the same job. I don't give a crap who big your plane is, how much you make, where you go or much about you. So long as I believe you uphold my profession I will extend to you the professional courtesy of my jumpseat with no expectation of a quid pro quo.

Regards,

caseyd
 

Share this page

Latest posts

Latest resources

Latest media

Carbon Cub FX-3 Shenandoah Valley
Carbon Cub at Kittyhawk
FX-3 in the backcountry
IFR Panel in a Carbon Cub FX-3
Cub-Provo-UT-c.jpg
Back
Top